Under what circumstances would you consider human for a protein if there were no consequences either physically or...

The word "some" does not appear in .

But at this point I'm just being an ass and arguing bullshit semantics.

Otherwise I agree with your post 100%.

There's more to sentience than intelligence, user

If she was under 10 years old when she died and the only part I'll eat is the butt

When we get to the point we can perfect cloning, it would be trivial to grow a cut of "human" meat in a test tube without it ever actually being part of a person

How? You know cloning starts with a human egg cell, right? You don't just grow "meat", you grow a human being. The meat can't grow without the rest of the body to support it--the heart pumps the blood needed to get the nutrients to the muscle cells, and so on.

We are already growing replacement tissue in labs right now. Skin, cartilage, ears, toes, even the heart itself. They're doing it by themselves without having to grow the rest of the body because you don't need a heart to pump blood, you just need the hydraulic pressure that the heart creates and a medium to carry oxygen and nutrients. That's not the future, that's literally right now, and basically the only things stopping it from being standard medical procedure for people who need transplants are quality control and red tape (which admittedly will take at least a decade).

Actual human clones are much farther off. When we get around to perfecting that, this technology will have been streamlined to the point that you can easily grow meat - muscle tissue, rather - without having to bother with the rest of the body. All the functions that help organs grow can be emulated.

Sure, I follow and agree with all that. But:
1) That's not a "Cut" as was mentioned in .

2) It's not cloning in the normal sense of the word.

....what you're describing is just growing muscle tissue in the lab. It's neither "Cloning" or is the finished product a "cut".

>It's neither "Cloning"
It doesn't need to be. My point is that there will never be a need to eat meat from a cloned human when eating genetically human grown meat is not only effectively the same to the palate, but much more feasible and much less controversial. The moral dilemma is a false one.

>nor is the finished product a "cut".

The difference is purely semantics. You're familiar with the meat glue controversy, yes? People could not tell the difference between whole "cuts" and bonded scraps until the practice was exposed.

>It doesn't need to be
I agree. You can certainly make lab-grown meat without cloning. I was just pointing out the semantic errors in .

Sorry-- looks like I left a word off.

What do you think about taboos? Are they a meaningful part of the way we think, even though their results can be irrational and silly?

I don't really value the way human minds work at their factory settings, with all of their blind spots and distortions. Some take a more appreciative view, though.

There's not necessarily a moral dilemma, but it's an interesting question. Must a fully-grown human body complete with an adult human brain be considered a person? There are definitely people who think personhood isn't immediately present in an infant-- they think it's something that grows from feedback and memory of experience. Of course, farming infants, personhood or no, tends to be questionable territory for emotions.

So, what if this perfectly blank slate of meat could exist dispassionately, in a lab setting? Would it be a person, or would it instead flail in the cold, with dead, unfocused eyes and not a single human thought inside it? Just animal meat.

No.. not many things disgust me or turn my stomach making me feel quizzy or sick, but human meat is a no go for me, same for primate meat, I already get quizzy with pig meat as it is because the organs look so much like ours.

If the person consented to be eaten and has died for reasons other than to provide meat, and I had some reason to try it. Or if the need for nutrition was desparate enough. We're all alive today because some of our ancestors were cannibalis.

I'd eat human now. I wouldn't go kill for it. But if somone wanted their remains eaten and it was butchered and cooked properly with no legal repercussion, I'd chow down no questions asked.

if theres no consequences physically or morally then you already have your answer... Eat it

bush meat is vile and anyone who jokes about eating it is fucking abnormal. I had to eat that garbage when I was volunteering in africa, keep it the fuck away from me.

I would eat this pussy at any opportunity

If you could eat the cloned meat of a human being who would you choose?

I'd eat kardashian steak

I dont usually murder people but I would murder that pussy

You don't USUALLY murder people? Just, like, occasionally?

no murder just clone their meat for eating.

Would you eat a tay-bone steak?

It's usually possible to suspend disbelief and pretend there are adults here, and then I see threads like these and I'm reminded that everyone on here is in 7th grade

I would spend most of my time rubbing my dick between her loins first if you know what i mean

dont worry dude i am 31 and middle class, I just like taytay

Do you have a wizard t-shirt that you wear when you go outside?

>going outside
wtf is wrong with you dude

maybe he's not hungry tho

I would eat human meat, but I expect that it probably doesn't taste very good.

how is a pig any less likely to be sentient than a dog.

In fact, how do we even know animals suffer less when they're less sentient. For all we know, the seemingly mindless ant experiences roughly the same range of suffering as we if not more

There's always a consequence user

I get to be an immortal wendigo?

Pain is a nervous response evolved to influence our decisions. It teaches us to avoid actions and situations that cause pain, because those actions tend to reduce our chance of reproducing.

Non-sapient creatures like ants do not make decisions. Their lives are controlled wholly by reflex-like impulses. Thus they probably do not feel pain, as there are no decisions that could be influenced by the sensation of pain.

No sentience = no pain
No pain = no suffering

>Their lives are controlled wholly by reflex-like impulses

The problem is that it can be very hard to determine the difference between that, and pain.

For example, if you or I were to touch a burning-hot object then we'd probably jerk our hand away from it the instant we felt the pain. Insects and crustaceans do the same thing.

>pigs don't make decisions
>pigs don't feel pain
Look, I love pork as much as the next guy, but I'm not going to act like it's a morally justifiable act. You just have to recognize that it's okay to act in an amoral fashion when it comes to food, because nature is inherently amoral.

I wouldn't ever.

Prions are fucking terrible and lead to awful defects and then death. The risk is too great.

Really depends on what human was on offer . Cannibals agree upon the following, whether serial killers or tribal headhunters:
>women taste better than men
>younger meat tastes better
>chubby>lean>obese>scrawny
>Babbys taSTE DA BEST GOAT
>white people taste better than black people
>cooking techniques for pork translate the best

> You just have to recognize that it's okay to act in an amoral fashion when it comes to food, because nature is inherently amoral
not the user arguing about sentience, but I've never thought about it that way. Morality is a social construct, and it's pretty irrelevant in terms of the nature of animals.

I was talking about ants, not pigs

just don't eat the brain then

Here is your (You).

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

>eating he nervous system

Why do you want laughing sickness

more or less. What, are you not used to people elaborating on your thoughts in social situations?

You weren't elaborating; you were restating. You added nothing.

You went off track when you started talking about pain "teaching" us anything. Pain is mindless, no different to any other body part, organ, sense or instinct. It acts automatically, whether it is for the best or not, because our ancestors who acted that way tended to reproduce better than not. It teaches nothing because in order to teach, you have to have a lesson in mind, and pain has no lesson in mind because it has no mind. Pain has no agenda. It is as automatic as a reflex, involuntary and, in a sufficiently different environmental from the ancestral, arbitrary.

At no point is pain necessary for sentience, for the same reason that happiness is not necessary for sentience, that wings are not needed for sentience, that anything other than a brain is needed for sentience. In an environment where terrible dangers that only need a moment's prolong contact to kill lurk everywhere, creatures with strong negative reactions (pain, fear, disgust etc.) do better than others. In an environment where nothing is truly absolutely dangerous, and where everything is worth a prolonged experience to check for usage, the opposite would occur - less picky eaters would have a reproductive edge over the needlessly fussy for instance, and people who tolerated a moment's injury better would gain more than those who howled in unbearable agony at a pinprick.

The ant you describe almost certainly feels pain. Its mind is very different from ours so an exact comparison is difficult. But that it reacts negatively to stimulus which its ancestors benefited from automatically avoiding is a given. Its senses can give negative feedback, and that includes pain, the feedback of injury.

>women taste better than men
Well we already know that from kissing.

Heh-heh, we sure do!

Sauce

Are you saying you've never kissed a man, user?

you know women do have that extra layer of fat so theyd probably be pretty tasty

i plan to try every meat there is at least once in my life so pretty much if i diddnt kill them and no one knew about it id go for it

wendigo nice

Sauce please id like to read up on this myself

here ya go, retards
lmgtfy.com/?q=la venus hottentote

no i meant the source of your knowledge

I'm not the guy who made the original post you both replied to; I just assumed you wanted to know more about the woman with the giant ass.

>Implying prions don't exist throughout the body.

And in doing so became the retard.

Actually Japanese people taste the best according to New Guinean cannibals, white people are "too salty".
the best tasting is their own women, according to the tribesmen.

Can someone breakdown why we cant eat the brain again? I heard its like nature's failsafe in a way when eaten albeit not a good one.

Protein infections, or prions as they're known, cause misfolded proteins for which there is no cure. It destroys your brain and causes a long and painful death.

Boy I hope those congo nigs or wherever else eat themselves are aware of that.

Not him but if you interviews from cannibals everyone tastes like straight pork theres almost no difference. Dont crucify me for this but I recall on an episode of the walking dead that women taste better cause they have an extra layer of fat for child bearing. An actor confirmed it in an interview I believe. And eating babys would be like eating veal/lamb, tender and delicious. Idk about the rest.

Pretty sure pigs being smart is a meme, friendo. Also, we like dogs and cats because they are predators like us, so they have higher intelligence but also share a lot of other charactetistics with humans.

And I do look down on the dirty chinks who eat dogs it's nasty.

That makes it sound like human meat is a goal in your life that you're working toward.

Desperation is the only thing that could drive me, otherwise I look down on cannibalism, rather not have that juju around me.

In related news, I'm getting several reports from other boards of cannibalism in venezuela due to the food crisis, in caracas and possibly other towns as well. Ought to be an outright travel ban on that country right now.

>Boy I hope those congo nigs or wherever else eat themselves are aware of that.
What's even scarier about prions is they can be transmitted by eating plants that grow where corpses are.

Pigs are smarter than most dogs

I was reading some article recently by this white guy who had dog and cat while he was in Asia. Said cat was trash but dog was fucking amazing and made him never want to eat beef again.

There's a chinese restaurant near where I live that once got busted for having cat in its refrigerators. Apparently the owner mixed the meat into various others and no-one noticed. Including me.

Ah man theirs a movie about this called Antiviral. Celebrity cells are cloned for public consumption. I'm not one for morales and all but that just seems fucked up.

That's not true
listverse.com/2015/07/01/10-reviews-of-human-flesh-by-real-cannibals/
smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/human-flesh-looks-beef-taste-more-elusive-180949562/?no-ist
Beef seems to be used as a comparison more than pork, with it's own unique taste

I followed a link in the second one and heard about a 22 year-old jap who took his asexuality so seriously, he had his genitals removed by elective surgery and served them as a swanky banquet for five.

And now I know cannibalism is legal in Japan.

>carnists unironically consider this shit

go vegan, brehs

for your own sanity, if nothing else

humans have easily the most varied diets of any mammal, certainly more than livestock, so if that is of any consequence I would imagine humans would correspondingly be the most varied in terms of flavor.

nah. im all about dairy and eggs.

also I wonder if there's also greater biodiversity among humans than livestock of any single species since the latter is selectively bred for certain traits and perhaps thus share a common lineage much later in evolutionary history than humans.

I vaguely remember an interview by BBC of a cannibal that had eaten meat from multiple individuals and commented that flavor "depends on the person" to something to that effect.

I get that reference.

Basically the human version of mad cow disease.

No thanks, but I wonder how badly vegan would taste; malnourished, subsisting on the practically inedible food, scrawny.

So I'm safe