NationStates Jolt Archive

(This is a draft on a proposal to bar cannibalism and similar practices from all nations.)

Considering that the act of cannibalism, and the devouring of human flesh, from living or dead human beings, to be barbaric and dangerously unhealthy, I move that such acts be barred from nations within the UN.

1. The buying or selling of human meat will be banned from all countries.

2. No meat will be consumed from a human being, wether living or dead.

3. Enforce laws to ensure that even the most rural areas are not drawn into cannibalism.

4. Provide food sources to any area where cannibalism has become a necessity.

5. Suggest that every nation pass legislation equating cannibalism to murder or other serious offenses.

6. Ban the transport of human corpses that have been cut up as to be used as food.

I eagerly await your opinions on this initiative.

While the Hack is not in the United Nations, we still like to keep up on what's happening in these... ahem... hallowed halls. As such, I'm occationally sent in to pop off with my opinion. So here goes:

No. Not only is this a primarily internal affair, we feel that such activities are not inherently wrong, immoral, or offensive. Advances in medical care in our nation has made the need for donated organs less severe, so, by and large, we have nothing to do with corpses. We can bury 'em and we can burn 'em, and both are kind of a waste, really.

Cannibalism, oddly enough, has filled that gap nicely. The deceased's family receives a small payment, a lovely cerimony, and the body is sent to a licensed facility where it is... processed. The smell can be horrific, but the resulting meat is perfectly safe for consumption; be it by humans or non-human sentients who like the taste of human flesh. It's a niche market, sure, but those are often the most profitable.

From where I'm sitting, this seems to be an attempt to legislate based on personal revulsion, as opposed to rationality. We just can't support "It's gross!" as a valid legal concept.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Scholar-philosopher workers at the People's Academy of Arcane Customs and Sciences Studies have unanimously concluded that the decision to eat one's love ones is not a matter of interest to the state.

(This is a draft on a proposal to bar cannibalism and similar practices from all nations.)

Considering that the act of cannibalism, and the devouring of human flesh, from living or dead human beings, to be barbaric and uncivilized, I move that such acts be barred from nations within the UN.

I eagerly await your opinions on this initiative.

Barbaric and uncivilized? I'm curious as to why you think you should get to decide what's barbaric or uncivilized within the borders of other nations.

Considering that the act of cannibalism...to be barbaric and uncivilized...

Not a very good argument. 'Barbaric' and 'uncivilised' are not absolute qualities. They are value judgements that may not be shared by all nations. The UN can't rule on issues of bad taste, pardon the pun. You will need to find a more practical reason for the UN to interfere in a nations decision on cannibalism.

We invite all who wish to a feast to honor our departed sister, Tillie Totough. Departed this day at noon in her bath at her home age 93.

Memoral will be from 2-6 on this coming Friday, next. At her formal home in Newpont.

Feast will be following Saturday, on the banks of the Tigruss River where she so loved to fish when she was able.

Drinks will be served from 12-2 and her from 2-.. all is gone.

Donations rather than flowers can be sent to: Softemup Totough at the State Mental House or left with family at the feast.

Meata Totough,
First Cousin the Desceased.

Culturally insensitive...
Not really an 'international' issue anyway...

Oh, and it's speciesist too...

Well we consider the consuming of human flesh to be a rather... odd habit, we do not support this resolution. We see no reason to oppose the eating of human flesh if it comes from someone who is already dead, and/or who consented, if that is part of a nation's customs.

The United Nations should not legislate in this matter, except perhaps to ban the killing of humans (without their consent) for the explicit purpose of eating them.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

The government of Sudalmenia finds it ridiculous and insulting to mankind that you suggest that any UN member state is in need of such a resolution.

From where I'm sitting, this seems to be an attempt to legislate based on personal revulsion, as opposed to rationality. We just can't support "It's gross!" as a valid legal concept.

With all due respect to the esteemed Hack, We should like to point out that "It's gross!" is a perfectly valid legal concept in Our nation. We see no reason why that should be an invalidating factor here.

We should like to point out that "It's gross!" is a perfectly valid legal concept in Our nation.

Because it's not a valid international legal concept.

To put it another way, if a person in a country foreign to yours consents to being eaten, or if that country has a culturally accepted practice of recycling its dead as food, what business is it of yours?

Ariddians do find the idea disgusting. But we will not support legislation that would impose our values on others in this matter.

The mere fact that this is being debated show that this resolution is needed. I cannot understand how any civilized nation can support cannibalism, and I will certainly support this anti-cannibalism proposal. *runs to bathroom to barf*

It is certainly worth introducing that cannibalism has been shown to be dangerously unhealthy as well. If the person in question died of a disease, and that disease is one of the many that can still survive without natural body heat, the person who would engage in the eating of that body would gain that disease.

I'd also like to direct attention to incidents such as the Kuru plague, which infects those who regularly engage in the eating of brains from deceased persons. Such things are not the only health risks associated with the devouring of human flesh, and that is one of the reasons the issue should be addressed.

Rather than simply arguing, perhaps the esteemed representatives can suggest changes and additions to the proposal, so that we can reach a medium that everyone is satisfied with.

One would hope that most countries would accept cannibalism is barbaric. However, there are instances which need to be addressed -

There was once a plane crash in the Andes, and in order to stay alive, the survivors had to eat their dead compatriots. Was this a crime?

Tom Cruise recently stated that he would eat the placenta of his wife after she had given birth...this provision against "human meat" - does this include this instance?

Sithya finds this measure far too absolute on one hand, and on the other, also too well established a principle to perhaps merit a UN initiative.

Cannibalism is a bizzarre and barbaric practice, yet Compadria wouldn't support a resolution banning it, purely on the grounds that it would be impossible to enforce and concerns something so trivial that it really isn't worth legislating on.

Additionally, we aren't completely convinced by the alleged scientific basis offered by the honourable delegate for Adollias to support his resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Well, assuming we manage to eat all our disabled people before the next proposal passes, we wouldn't be overly fussed with this proposal, although we would of course vote against it.

Hmm, what about cultured tissue grown from human beings and blood donations. Does this fall under this legislation. It is how we keep some of our alien vampires happy as well as keeping our alien neighbors at bay. This way they don't have to invade us and we have a lucrative trade....

It is certainly worth introducing that cannibalism has been shown to be dangerously unhealthy as well.

Then that should be an issue for individual nations who will have the responsibility of dealing with the side effects in their own citizens. It’s not an issue that warrants international action.

Rather than simply arguing, perhaps the esteemed representatives can suggest changes and additions to the proposal, so that we can reach a medium that everyone is satisfied with.

My suggestion is scrap it completely or, like Ariddia, a resolution on protecting persons against being killed for eating without their consent.

If this resolution is scrapped, it will not be replaced by one to protect people from being killed to be eaten. There are laws against murder and genocide as it is, there is no purpose to re-inforcing said laws with addenums for cannibalism. For cannibalism to be actually outlawed, it must be done so providing that the cannibalism laws pick up where murder laws left off, meaning that murder deals with the rights of the living, and cannibalism laws with the rights of the deceased.

There are laws against murder
There is no UN law against murder.

I think cnnabalism is sick and wrong, but mostly sickining because I don't dare to think what disease the person has that is being eaten. :mad:

I think there should be a UN law against murder or everyone will go around killing and we'd have barely anyone alive:eek: :sniper: that should not happen!

I think there should be a UN law against murder or everyone will go around killing and we'd have barely anyone alive:eek: :sniper: that should not happen!Because, I'm assuming, all the national statutes forbidding murder are insufficient?

Ariddians do find the idea disgusting. But we will not support legislation that would impose our values on others in this matter.We're not entirely sure what Ariddia's overarching policy on national sovereignty vs. "international federalism" is, but given that this nation has in the past supported resolutions that did precisely what it here condemns, there is a fair amount of irony in this statement.

Cannibalism is a bizzarre and barbaric practice, yet Compadria wouldn't support a resolution banning it, purely on the grounds that it would be impossible to enforce and concerns something so trivial that it really isn't worth legislating on.This one's a shocker too. :eek:

Considering the way this thread seems to be shaping up, I hereby move that Gruen's sig be enlarged, framed and hung on the wall in clear view for all to see.

There is a major problem with the resolution that the author might not be aware of because of general assumptions of the way the world is. The author has proposed this resolution to make cannibalism illegal. But that is not what it does. The resolution simply makes the eating of human flesh illegal. Let's consider the definition of cannibalism by Webster.

1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind

You might think, "well isn't that the same thing?" But it's not. The key point is "by a human being." Foul mouthed dolphins can eat human flesh, but it's not cannibalism. Humans could I suppose eat foul mouthed dolphins, but it's also not cannibalism. Neither should be eating each other, but the resolution only has a one sided ban on the eating of human fllesh.

I should also point out that according to the Soyent corporation, in a press release after some important trade secrets were revealed by over zealous law enforcement, pointed out that "People, people who eat people, are the luckiest people in the world." Soyent Green, of the people, by the people, for the people!

Personally I prefer pelican on a stick, but that's our own natonal preference.

We're not entirely sure what Ariddia's overarching policy on national sovereignty vs. "international federalism" is, but given that this nation has in the past supported resolutions that did precisely what it here condemns, there is a fair amount of irony in this statement.


A fair point. I suppose I should have expressed myself more clearly.

Ariddia values national sovereignty, and, as a general rule, we do not support resolutions which would impose values which we ourselves adhere to, if those values are not of international importance. Which is why we would not (as our current policy stands) vote in favour of a resolution banning the death penalty or banning private ownership of firearms, for example. Although Ariddian citizens do not carry guns and may not be executed under Ariddian law, we feel these are issues best left to each nation's legislation.

We support only resolutions which address fundamental issues meriting (in our view) international legislation. As we understand it, that is also OMGTKK's stance, although your interpretation of it may be more... restricted even than ours.

Would it be acceptable if the bill was reformed to say that

1. The death of any human being purely for the use of food is banned.

2. The consumption of deceased humans by humans is unlawful without the consent of said person before their death.

A fair point. I suppose I should have expressed myself more clearly.

Ariddia values national sovereignty, and, as a general rule, we do not support resolutions which would impose values which we ourselves adhere to, if those values are not of international importance. Which is why we would not (as our current policy stands) vote in favour of a resolution banning the death penalty or banning private ownership of firearms, for example. Although Ariddian citizens do not carry guns and may not be executed under Ariddian law, we feel these are issues best left to each nation's legislation.

We support only resolutions which address fundamental issues meriting (in our view) international legislation. As we understand it, that is also OMGTKK's stance, although your interpretation of it may be more... restricted even than ours.

As respect to a nation's sovereignty is certainly of importance, the nations represented by the UN must also acknowledge the health implications that cannot be ignored should such practices be condoned, which in turn is of significant international importance. There is indeed scientific data that supports the conclusion that such acts are extremely hazardous to the health and well-being of those that practice said acts, as well as to other humans that come in contact with people that involve themselves in said act. If we are to ignore these factors in deciding an outcome, we are limiting ourselves to what we can prevent in future potential health threats that can be associated to ALL nations, regardless of wether or not any nation condones such practices.

There is indeed much concern that must be recognized before dismissing this as a nation's choice. That choice could and will bear a dramatic impact on an international scale that cannot be ignored. The Commonwealth of Ontarian strenously urges the UN to oppose any forms of cannibalism on live or dead human tissue for the safety and well-being of its international members.

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

It is certainly worth introducing that cannibalism has been shown to be dangerously unhealthy as well. If the person in question died of a disease, and that disease is one of the many that can still survive without natural body heat, the person who would engage in the eating of that body would gain that disease..A person who eats certain foods and drinks water from a source often builds with time immunity to that food or water. So those who eat human flesh develope some immunity to what it might have in it while if they eat say beef or pork; a simple virus in it might kill them yet it does nothing to the people who eat those all their lives. Thus if the same standards of testing human flesh are used as say one does for beef or port then where is there anymore risk. Look at what they do to cows, sheep, chickens, and other animal that might be infected with something in the real world. They are killing chickens all the time because of bird flu or something and then cows for madcow.

The only thing here is the concern of abuse of this which each nation not the UN needs to address. If your citizens say no eating human burgers then okay. If we say no beef or pork burgers then okay as it's a national issue up to individual nations tastes. How many just don't like liver, dog, rat, cat, or horse, so should we ban eating it even serving it? What about snails or frog legs?

There is indeed scientific data that supports the conclusion that such acts are extremely hazardous to the health and well-being of those that practice said acts, as well as to other humans that come in contact with people that involve themselves in said act. If we are to ignore these factors in deciding an outcome, we are limiting ourselves to what we can prevent in future potential health threats that can be associated to ALL nations, regardless of wether or not any nation condones such practices. There are health risks with about everything we might eat not just human flesh and these also have been proven so buy the same groups that probably did your test on human flesh eaters. Thus instead of making one or two foods banned write a proposal that sets up testing standards on all foods. That would prevent as well as possible the spread of any dangerous virus from eating bad foods. The only other solution it banning eating all meats and plants, even drinking water no matter how much we try to clean it up, even taking regular medications can be a danger to those around the user.

An example would be birth control pills; As read some time back some place that women's bodies use only a small percent of the pill and the waste is passed down the drain into the water system. The water treatment plants do not remove what is in birth control pills thus it is in the drinking water. This means when women drink tap water they are taking enough to effect them, also men are drinking the tap water and the pills effect their sperm count, lowering it. So if you are concerned about something getting into the say water system from folks who eat human flesh you need to consider all things not just human flesh.

Would it be acceptable if the bill was reformed to say that
1. The death of any human being purely for the use of food is banned.
2. The consumption of deceased humans by humans is unlawful without the consent of said person before their death.We have laws on murder and if it is murder then they should be dealt with under existing laws on such so we don't need more laws just to enforce those already in place on murder. As for the second part one must assume that if the nation tests any food before the citizens can consume it that they would also have some test for human flesh, thus this would not be needed.

If you must make a proposal try doing it to ensure all food sources are tested before consumption to some standards to protect those who use them. As any food can be harmful either right off or over time.

A person who eats certain foods and drinks water from a source often builds with time immunity to that food or water. So those who eat human flesh develope some immunity to what it might have in it while if they eat say beef or pork; a simple virus in it might kill them yet it does nothing to the people who eat those all their lives. Thus if the same standards of testing human flesh are used as say one does for beef or port then where is there anymore risk. Look at what they do to cows, sheep, chickens, and other animal that might be infected with something in the real world. They are killing chickens all the time because of bird flu or something and then cows for madcow.

The only thing here is the concern of abuse of this which each nation not the UN needs to address. If your citizens say no eating human burgers then okay. If we say no beef or pork burgers then okay as it's a national issue up to individual nations tastes. How many just don't like liver, dog, rat, cat, or horse, so should we ban eating it even serving it? What about snails or frog legs?

There are health risks with about everything we might eat not just human flesh and these also have been proven so buy the same groups that probably did your test on human flesh eaters. Thus instead of making one or two foods banned write a proposal that sets up testing standards on all foods. That would prevent as well as possible the spread of any dangerous virus from eating bad foods. The only other solution it banning eating all meats and plants, even drinking water no matter how much we try to clean it up, even taking regular medications can be a danger to those around the user.

An example would be birth control pills; As read some time back some place that women's bodies use only a small percent of the pill and the waste is passed down the drain into the water system. The water treatment plants do not remove what is in birth control pills thus it is in the drinking water. This means when women drink tap water they are taking enough to effect them, also men are drinking the tap water and the pills effect their sperm count, lowering it. So if you are concerned about something getting into the say water system from folks who eat human flesh you need to consider all things not just human flesh.

The mass production of animal meat is done so in controlled environments with specific diets in place governed and administered by World Health agencies and organizations in association with producers to limit health risks.

Humans are not cattle, nor are they a glass of water. They are much more complex biological organisms. Most animals have extremely limited diets. Humans are omnivores; humans are also individuals, as by the individual choices they make in their lives, be it by social or dietary, that cause greater health concerns should they be consumed for the purpose of food. This is why the use of specific animal meat products is commonly accepted practice, due to its controlled environment and production.

You would have to administer the same standards towards humans if your intent was to consume their meat. This means producing humans in a controlled environment with specifc guildlines maintained and dietary practices enforced in order to ensure such a proposition could hold any form of merit. You cannot perform mass genocide on human beings simply because they have a contageous disease. I would find it quite alarming, and furthermore quite disturbing that the UN would even begin to take such an attrocity on living human beings for the sole purpose of consumption upon death seriously.

There is simply no comparison here. The potential for global health crisis is indeed great should such a motion be considered as just.

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

The mass production of animal meat is done so in controlled environments with specific diets in place governed and administered by World Health agencies and organizations in association with producers to limit health risks.Maybe in some NS nations but not mine and probably many others. As we hunt in the wild many of our food animals of which sharks are a main dish here.

You would have to administer the same standards towards humans if your intent was to consume their meat.True we would have to administer the same standards towards humans if we consume them.. Thus you forget the risk that comes after they have be bred for food and move toward the plate. Thus we see and do apply those standards needed to protect those who eat anything from getting sick from eating it.

There is simply no comparison here. The potential for global health crisis is indeed great should such a motion be considered as just.

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of OntarianSo what you are saying is ban it due to the 'potential' glogal health risk eating human flesh presents to mention just one of your reason to ban it.


Here we don't eat those who die of a known illness that is a potential threat to others. We do eat those who fall in battle and have so given desire to allow their family to consume them, also those who die in an accident, are murdered, or die of natural causes. We don't eat anyone who commits suicide as their is no honor in such action so they are cremated and their ashes disposed of, also we don't eat criminals as they also are cremated or some fed to the sharks to help us feed those that protect our shores.

I might add for your information that the citizens of Zeldon are not human thus for us to eat them is not an act of cannibalism as earlier noted.
Let's consider the definition of cannibalism by Webster.
1 : the usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being
2 : the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind
However we stopped eating humans many centries back when we found they made better slaves than a main course and that shark was much better on the table than serving us around one.

Zarta Warden,
Zeldon UN Ambassador

This one's a shocker too.

Considering the way this thread seems to be shaping up, I hereby move that Gruen's sig be enlarged, framed and hung on the wall in clear view for all to see.

Well, everyone flirts with the dark side a few times.;)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

However we stopped eating humans many centries back when we found they made better slaves than a main course and that shark was much better on the table than serving us around one.

Pitty. The Book "To Serve Man" is my favorite cookbook, even though by law I have to use substitute some of the ingredients. Oh wait, that wasn't Zeldon, that was a Kanamit book, never mind then.

Pitty. The Book "To Serve Man" is my favorite cookbook, even though by law I have to use substitute some of the ingredients. Oh wait, that wasn't Zeldon, that was a Kanamit book, never mind then."Lady on a Plate" is very popular here when you can find all the right natural ingredients. As breast implants do nothing for us.

This might be illegal considering the indigenous peoples resolution.

I do not believe I can support this outright, because not all nations, or sapient beings (myself included), are completely, or partially human.

Signed,
Totrue Tufaar,
President and Generalissimo of the Federated Republics of Spiral Sun;
Cofounder, High General, and Commander-in-Chief of the Pan Galactic Confederation

Barbaric and uncivilized? I'm curious as to why you think you should get to decide what's barbaric or uncivilized within the borders of other nations.

Please forgive us this side note from the main topic, but we are somehow surprised by the comments of the esteemed Ambassador, Edward Jones.

We don't really see in what physical borders between nations (which are maybe 99% of the times the result of war issues and then are pretty arbitrary) may be related with what's barbaric or uncivilized.

With all our respect to the Ambassador, and we hope he will not be upset by our words, but we wonder if he doesn’t push the concept of “nation” a little too far, eventually forgetting what a "nation" is made for...

We don't really see in what physical borders between nations (which are maybe 99% of the times the result of war issues and then are pretty arbitrary) may be related with what's barbaric or uncivilized.
Nothing can be barbaric and uncivilized, it can only be perceived as such. Since nations generally share a lot of the same culture, due to much greater contact within the nation than without, leading to a localized culture, and values are part of culture, perceptions of what is barbaric and uncivilized may follow, to a certain extent, national borders.

Please forgive us this side note from the main topic, but we are somehow surprised by the comments of the esteemed Ambassador, Edward Jones.

We don't really see in what physical borders between nations (which are maybe 99% of the times the result of war issues and then are pretty arbitrary) may be related with what's barbaric or uncivilized.

With all our respect to the Ambassador, and we hope he will not be upset by our words, but we wonder if he doesn’t push the concept of “nation” a little too far, eventually forgetting what a "nation" is made for...

OOC:

For one, Edward resigned some time ago, during your nation's hiatus from these halls.

For two, that comment is hardly unexpected, and how you manage to be surprised that the nation that used to sign its posts with "National Sovereignty: It's like that "Tolerance" Crap on a national level." would make it is surprising in itself.

IC:

Would the ambassador from Love and Esterel be so kind as to enlighten the international community as to what a nation is made for so we might discuss it?

For two, that comment is hardly unexpected, and how you manage to be surprised that the nation that used to sign its posts with "National Sovereignty: It's like that "Tolerance" Crap on a national level." would make it is surprising in itself.I'll be adding that little number to my sig if you don't mind. :cool:

I'll be adding that little number to my sig if you don't mind. :cool:

Not at all. Go ahead. Have fun. :)

For two, that comment is hardly unexpected, and how you manage to be surprised that the nation that used to sign its posts with "National Sovereignty

Indeed:D


Would the ambassador from Love and Esterel be so kind as to enlighten the international community as to what a nation is made for so we might discuss it?

Maybe for people, don't you think? I don't see any enlightment here, hopefully;)

Maybe for people, don't you think? I don't see any enlightment here, hopefully;)

Maybe for whatever purpose those in currently charge of it decide it was made for?