Len Cnut Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 If we don't consider the fact that the parents suffered, no one was hurt and presumably that man enjoyed it. It is almost a sweet albeit morbid story. Philosophically it reminds me of this: That comic doesn't even make sense. Grounds for leniency in murders? So he's implying it's not so bad to murder people if their bodies are consumed by the murderer?Too bad Breivik didn't eat his 77 victims, if he did maybe he would have gotten only 10 years instead of 21. You dont reckon he was maybe taking the piss do ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streak Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Imagine him doing it thoughwhilst simultaneously doing a little jig to the tune of put em on the glass by sir mix a lotobviously while watching the video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Yes, i imagine thats exactly how it all went down! I bet he used to have little tea parties with em Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Slipknot could write a concept album based on this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 Only trouble is it'd be shite. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 Vol 6: The Grave Dolls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 (edited) In a way it is nice that these dead kids could still bring happiness to that man's life. Right?is that man's happiness more important than showing respect for the deceased?I guess it depends on whether you think that "respect for the dead" is important. I mean, the dead won't know they are being disrespected so maybe it doesn't matter?If we don't consider the fact that the parents suffered, no one was hurt and presumably that man enjoyed it. It is almost a sweet albeit morbid story. Philosophically it reminds me of this:That comic doesn't even make sense. Grounds for leniency in murders? So he's implying it's not so bad to murder people if their bodies are consumed by the murderer?He implies that it is less bad to murder someone and eat them, than to just murder someone. Why doesn't that make sense? Edited October 29, 2014 by SoulMonster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 29, 2014 Author Share Posted October 29, 2014 If we don't consider the fact that the parents suffered, no one was hurt and presumably that man enjoyed it. It is almost a sweet albeit morbid story. Philosophically it reminds me of this: That comic doesn't even make sense. Grounds for leniency in murders? So he's implying it's not so bad to murder people if their bodies are consumed by the murderer?Too bad Breivik didn't eat his 77 victims, if he did maybe he would have gotten only 10 years instead of 21. You dont reckon he was maybe taking the piss do ya? Calvin? Yes.SM? Yes.Can't I play along too? Since that post I'm starting to wonder about SM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 29, 2014 Share Posted October 29, 2014 In a way it is nice that these dead kids could still bring happiness to that man's life. Right? is that man's happiness more important than showing respect for the deceased?I guess it depends on whether you think that "respect for the dead" is important. I mean, the dead won't know they are being disrespected so maybe it doesn't matter?Great point! Then why does everyone bother with funeral services, embalming, cremating and burying? Just throw the damn bodies into the dump with all the other decomposing rubbish! If we don't consider the fact that the parents suffered, no one was hurt and presumably that man enjoyed it. It is almost a sweet albeit morbid story. Philosophically it reminds me of this: That comic doesn't even make sense. Grounds for leniency in murders? So he's implying it's not so bad to murder people if their bodies are consumed by the murderer?He implies that it is less bad to murder someone and eat them, than to just murder someone. Why doesn't that make sense?Didn't know you were a member of the NRA ... or are you just taking their piss too? Does the NRA advocate that cannibalism is a mitigating factor in murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Okay I'll play along. The NRA and many hunters take the position of killing animals only to eat, rather than killing animals just for sport. That's what Calvin is referencing in his nonsensical debate request (is that better, Lio? ).You didn't respond to my suggestion that we just throw human bodies into the dump with all the other decomposing rubbish, does that mean you're all for it?Killig animals for food is of course better than just killing them. Doesn't everyone agree with that?I don't care where we throw dead bodies. For all I care, when I die my family can wrap me in old news papers and dump me in the garbage bin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Killig animals for food is of course better than just killing them. Doesn't everyone agree with that?You take em home as trophies. My grandad had a tigers ummm...whats the proper word? Skin? Whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Killig animals for food is of course better than just killing them. Doesn't everyone agree with that?You take em home as trophies. My grandad had a tigers ummm...whats the proper word? Skin? Whatever.And harpooning whales for fun without eating their succulent, juice flesh is just wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I didn't know people did it 'just for fun'. Not that I'm an authority on the subject. I love hunting and i think anyone who eats meat and thinks thats a justifiable reason over and above sport is a fucking pompous prat. OK, perhaps thats extreme, chatting shit at any rate! Edited October 30, 2014 by Lennie Godber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 I don't think anyone is killing whales just for fun. But people have always been killing animals for fun (although probably not whales since it requires so much effort). I abhor the killing of animals for just fun or just sports. I think it is cruel and shows a lack of respect for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Whys it OK for food and not for sport? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Because food is more important to us than being able to kill animals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Because food is more important to us than being able to kill animals.Yeah but meat ain't the only food is it, we don't eat meat cuz we ain't got no other options, we eat meat cuz we like it, for the taste of it, cuz we enjoy it, much like we enjoy sport like hunting, there's no difference except in the minds of people that want a blag to justify the fact that they eat the poor little ani-mules. So you can eat em and shit em out and flush em into the North Sea, you can their skin on your back and on your feet...but Christ, don't shoot em for sport, thats just evil, don't make me fuckin' laugh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Because food is more important to us than being able to kill animals.Yeah but meat ain't the only food is it, we don't eat meat cuz we ain't got no other options, we eat meat cuz we like it, for the taste of it, cuz we enjoy it, much like we enjoy sport like hunting, there's no difference except in the minds of people that want a blag to justify the fact that they eat the poor little ani-mules. So you can eat em and shit em out and flush em into the North Sea, you can their skin on your back and on your feet...but Christ, don't shoot em for sport, thats just evil, don't make me fuckin' laugh Sure, we have sustenance alternatives to meat, just as we have pasttime activities alternatives to sports hunting. But sustenance is still more important to our survival than recreation, so I am more loath to reduce our sustenance options than I am to reduce our recreational options. Secondly, while we have basically only one alternative to eating meat (eating plants) we have thousands of alternatives to hunting animals when we want to have some fun. Thirdly, whereas meat sustains the majority of the global population, only a fraction of it enjoy sports hunting. So I conclude that I am against the killing of animals for fun, but accept it when it is done for sustenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted October 30, 2014 Author Share Posted October 30, 2014 Because food is more important to us than being able to kill animals.Yeah but meat ain't the only food is it, we don't eat meat cuz we ain't got no other options, we eat meat cuz we like it, for the taste of it, cuz we enjoy it, much like we enjoy sport like hunting, there's no difference except in the minds of people that want a blag to justify the fact that they eat the poor little ani-mules. So you can eat em and shit em out and flush em into the North Sea, you can their skin on your back and on your feet...but Christ, don't shoot em for sport, thats just evil, don't make me fuckin' laugh Sure, we have sustenance alternatives to meat, just as we have pasttime activities alternatives to sports hunting. But sustenance is still more important to our survival than recreation, so I am more loath to reduce our sustenance options than I am to reduce our recreational options. Secondly, while we have basically only one alternative to eating meat (eating plants) we have thousands of alternatives to hunting animals when we want to have some fun. Thirdly, whereas meat sustains the majority of the global population, only a fraction of it enjoy sports hunting. So I conclude that I am against the killing of animals for fun, but accept it when it is done for sustenance.You're just rationalising and wilfully ignoring the immediate absolutes of the morality involved here, degrading the equation to the reduction of options, which is just dancing around the point, which is plain and obvious. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
streak Posted October 31, 2014 Share Posted October 31, 2014 fuck youIf it bleeds we can eat it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blacula Posted November 1, 2014 Share Posted November 1, 2014 That's why my archaeologist friend says that she wants to be cremated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 You lot have heard of Jeremy Bentham, the social reformer and founder of utilitarianism? Well he was something of an eccentric and left a rather macabre dying wish. Basically, if you visit University College, London, there he is, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Cnut Posted November 2, 2014 Author Share Posted November 2, 2014 What is it like, proper him, like, preserved or something?!?!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandallFlagg Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Reminds me of the absolute nutjob Dahmer who planned an altar made of his victims skulls and skin lamps and shit, he used to eat pieces of them, kept organs in jars, worked at a chocolate factory and invited young guys to his house then sedated and killed them and boiled them/skinned them to easily dispose of the remains since he lived in an apartment block. It's real interesting when you read about the origins and development of some of these serial killers, creepy as shit but there's often a method to the macabre.Dahmer's nice little diagram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted November 2, 2014 Share Posted November 2, 2014 Yes but it is not his real head any longer because the mummification process was flawed and left a ghoulish appearance so they had to use a wax replica. So what you see in the picture is his skeleton and his clothes, with a wax head but with his real hair. His real head was actually displayed alongside, what you see in the picture and this was the situation for many years. The problem was, the head was used in successive student pranks so it was eventually placed in storage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.