To: asmith92008
" Just 'cause you don't agree with nutcase Krauts who are into S&M&C, doesn't make them crazy. Do I detect enforcement of morals here?"
Actually, I think cannibalism does (or should) qualify as some sort of mental illness. What you detect here is an enforcement of societal norms, as legalized cannibalism has no place in a civilized society. Simply put, you can't allow people to go around eating each other without ramifications other than a stomach ache.
"It must have been someone's something I ate" can never be used to describe one's stomach pains.
189 posted on
07/23/2004 6:27:07 AM PDT by
Blzbba
(Hillary Clinton - Dawn of a New Error.)
To: Blzbba
While I quite agree that one's food should only disagree with him after the meal and not before, this comes from a moral judgment that human life is precious. Therefore, the law can stop consenting adults who had no history of mental illness, i.e. they can distinguish reality from fantasy, event though they are not infringing on other's rights.
I believe the fact that we don;t see more incidents like this, even though there appears to be quite a subculture on the net from the news reports about this case, is attributable to the effectiveness of legislating morals. Folks might want to eat each other but realize they'll get sent to a place where their potential meals are certainly not free range.
190 posted on
07/24/2004 9:34:55 PM PDT by
asmith92008
(If we buy into the nonsense that we always have to vote for RINOs, we'll just end up taking the horn)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson