|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 8:54PM
#1041
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
Our Judicial System is generally considered acceptable, and it has quite a few flaws. :S
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 9:12PM
#1042
|
Date Joined:
Nov 25, 2006
|
You get exactly the same problem with any form of meat, regardless of source.
Large segments of the animal kingdom regulary practice cannibalism, and any animal (humans included) will do so if the alternative is starvation. There's no more danger in eating human meat than there is in eating cow meat, in fact there's probably less danger as we tend to look after our own health more than we look after the health of our livestock.
Not exactly true you should read up on mad cow for the implications of cow eating cow.
Oh yes animals practice cannibalism some is to ward off starvation some is to kill extra offspring some is to kill rivals offspring and some is even for ritual bonding (usually in primates) all this is low consumption.
If a human society was going to do it on a large scale like with the feeding of cows to cows you start to get similar problems.
I think humans don't look after our own health because of how we look after the health of our livestock.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 9:17PM
#1043
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
I assume you do realise that Cows are not omnivorous.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 9:24PM
#1044
|
|
|
Not exactly true you should read up on mad cow for the implications of cow eating cow.
Oh yes animals practice cannibalism some is to ward off starvation some is to kill extra offspring some is to kill rivals offspring and some is even for ritual bonding (usually in primates) all this is low consumption.
If a human society was going to do it on a large scale like with the feeding of cows to cows you start to get similar problems.
I think humans don't look after our own health because of how we look after the health of our livestock.
Maybe YOU should read up on mad cow.
The mad cow disease epidemic started because cows were being fed MBM from cows that had the disease. It went undetected because mad cow is primarily carried in the spine and brain. As such, MBM contains all of the cow parts they don't use for human consumption, including spine and brain... along with the parts of sickly and ill cows that weren't fit for butchering. That is exactly why they got mad cow disease. It is not caused by feeding cows healthy cows.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 9:53PM
#1045
|
Date Joined:
Nov 25, 2006
|
Maybe YOU should read up on mad cow.
The mad cow disease epidemic started because cows were being fed MBM from cows that had the disease. It went undetected because mad cow is primarily carried in the spine and brain. As such, MBM contains all of the cow parts they don't use for human consumption, including spine and brain... along with the parts of sickly and ill cows that weren't fit for butchering. That is exactly why they got mad cow disease. It is not caused by feeding cows healthy cows.
And if humans were marketed humans for consumption it is more than likely that we would see all parts of the corpse get used in food for economic reasons.
soylent green is people.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 10:16PM
#1046
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
It's not actually feasible to build an industry around growing people for food; we take far too long to mature to make us a viable food source.
None of which is relevant to the original point that Cannibalism as a practice is not flawed in the same way that Sacrifice is, as Cannibalism does in fact achieve the goal it sets out to reach.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 10:41PM
#1047
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
Does that mean there is a "parasitic" relationship between a "leader" and the rest of the group? After all why whould they "waste" their actions helping everyone else when they could be doing other things? When was the party ever "expected" to prop up the fighter? IIRC there where no real buff spells in 1st edition or 2nd edition. Those started in 3E and where basically taking from CGs, but they where far from "required" to make the fighter effective.
Actually there were buff spells in AD&D, Striking, Bless, Bulls Strength, Cats grace, all of those existed pre-3rd edition, as did other augment strategies.
As to the leader, their attacks and abilities give bonuses to allies as an aside, IE they do MORE than a normal attack in terms of damage AND also get a useful kicker effect. Minor actions to do a healing surge aren't bad as minor actions, by and large, aren't used for that many things and they can still do their normal stuff. In other words your analogy fails in comparison.
Prepping a buff spell for a fighter takes up a spell slot that I could instead put SoD spells, CC spells, or just put in a larger self augment (by and large self buff spells were bigger and better than buffs I could put on others). To put it simply, prepping buff spells meant that instead of taking spells that would let me end the encounter faster I was giving the fighter an IV of my class features.
4th conversely built the classes into each other, each class has some abilities that build on the others. Some hit hard, some give bonuses, some lock an enemy down, and some force the enemies focus.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 10:44PM
#1048
|
Date Joined:
Nov 25, 2006
|
It's not actually feasible to build an industry around growing people for food; we take far too long to mature to make us a viable food source.
None of which is relevant to the original point that Cannibalism as a practice is not flawed in the same way that Sacrifice is, as Cannibalism does in fact achieve the goal it sets out to reach.
I agree with the first part if you want to keep your population the same but if you wanted to reduce your population industrial cannibalism would work. It lowers population but as I already said you would have to worry about things similar to mad cow.
And as I said some cultures would say killing one person from your village won't change the weather but if done right it can really cement a small groups resolve to work together for the future. The idea that many of the cultures who practiced sacrifice only did it to change the weather is flawed. The masses may have though that was what it was about some times but often the leaders new that one less mouth to feed or 100 less mouths to feed in larger groups might make a difference. And after seeing 100 sacrifices many peasants may have found new reasons to work harder.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 10:51PM
#1049
|
|
|
And if humans were marketed humans for consumption it is more than likely that we would see all parts of the corpse get used in food for economic reasons.
soylent green is people.
No, we wouldn't. There isn't a single creature that humans harvest where we actually use the entire creature as food. There is always something to discard, whether the bone or shell or any other major component our bodies cannot digest. It would be completely illogical to eat an entire human being, since the bone would sit in our gullet for months on end unable to be fully converted into energy or waste (and may mercy be upon you when that chunk of bone comes blasting out your backside... that's gonna hurt). Not to mention the vast amount of human parts which would have zero nutritional value.
If it seems I know way too much about the subject, I once worked in a slaughterhouse. It taught me one important lesson: mammals are mammals, and while they may look different, turning them into meat is basically the same process no matter the species.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Jul 25, 2009 - 11:21PM
#1050
|
Date Joined:
Nov 25, 2006
|
No, we wouldn't. There isn't a single creature that humans harvest where we actually use the entire creature as food. There is always something to discard, whether the bone or shell or any other major component our bodies cannot digest. It would be completely illogical to eat an entire human being, since the bone would sit in our gullet for months on end unable to be fully converted into energy or waste (and may mercy be upon you when that chunk of bone comes blasting out your backside... that's gonna hurt). Not to mention the vast amount of human parts which would have zero nutritional value.
If it seems I know way too much about the subject, I once worked in a slaughterhouse. It taught me one important lesson: mammals are mammals, and while they may look different, turning them into meat is basically the same process no matter the species.
First you are right, I should have said that Humans are yummy corp would have cut up the meat, used various body parts in Chinese medicine made a nice soft dish from the brains ect ect and who knows what they would make out of the bones. But I understand you know more about cutting up animals than I do, but you might want to understand that a culture that thinks of humans as nothing but meat would not think like you and me and most of our world uses a lot more of the animals parts than the USA and England does. In England they use to feed cow left overs to cows that they would then eat the cows who were feed the parts they did not want to eat.
But I was to basic in my wording. Hope no one has any trouble with soup bones you don't leave them in the soup.
|
|
|
