I’m right, you’re wrong. So there.

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.

No comments yet. Commenting is not yet reimplemented after the Wordpress migration, sorry! For now, you can email me and I can manually add comments. Feed icon