Brain on Fire » Blog Tim McCormack says words

I just had a fun debate with my roommate over whether eating people is wrong. It started when he was channel-surfing and flipped past “Red Dragon”, the prequel to “Silence of the Lambs”. I mentioned that after taking Human Gross Anatomy, I wasn’t as squeamish about the content of the movie. Here I have recorded what I can recall about the debate that followed. Can you guess which one is me?

• It is wrong, a deviant behavior
  • Explain
    • murder is always wrong (“Thou Shalt Not Kill”)
      • die of natural causes
      • not always wrong to kill anyway
        • when is it okay?
          • self defense
            • (no response)
          • for the greater good
            • precedence…
              • Black Death
                • not civilized
                  • have morals changed?
                • science can cure stuff now
                  • Ebola, Marburg?
                    • (no response)
    • desecration
      • What is desecration?
        • I don’t own your body
          • I’m going to will my body to science
            • but that benefits society
              • Many things don’t benefit society. does cannabilism hurt society?
              • If my final wishes don’t harm anyone, and you don’t respect them, isn’t that also desecration?
            • why would someone want to eat someone
              • (no response – I really don’t know)
    • Effect on society?
      • What would it do?
        • It would tell people that it was OK
          • That’s what we’re debating. Circular logic.
        • It would disturb people.
          • We were just watching a guy kill a non-consenting person to eat them. Doesn’t that disturb people?
            • People know it’s not real
              • People know it won’t happen to them — they aren’t consenting
                • People are more affected by the news than by movies (fact vs. fiction)
                  • I disagree that the difference is so large. We are dramatically affected by fictitious stories, especially those we can see and hear on TV. Take the phenomenon of para-social relationships.
                    • (no response)
                • Cites a study of how children are affected by fiction the same as they are by fact, but that this changes in adulthood.
                  • It lessens, it doesn’t disappear.
                    • You can’t argue with the study, it proves it!
                      • Studies aren’t proof
                        • Yes they are
                          • What about evolution?
                            • That isn’t fact. What about the missing link?
                              • It’s an established scientific theory based on physics, biology, geology, genetics, and chemistry.
                                • It’s wrong.

Well, I could see we weren’t going to get much further after he rejected evolution outright, but accepted a sociological study as gospel truth. Plus, he had to study for a test. Before he left, he stated that he had “proved me wrong, and he’ll prove me wrong again.” I told him that neither of us had proven anything, that only in math can you have proof, that science isn’t about proof — even the researchers of the study he cited would tell him that. I don’t think he quite accepted that.

It was an interesting exercise. Maybe next we can cover gender and sexuality. That oughta be a fun one, if his reaction to evolution is any indicator.

Addendum: He also used an appeal to nature as one of his arguments against cannabilism. I might add that branch in later.