shh. in class. learning
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No matter what the teacher says:
Mormons eat babies.
(I double-dog dare you to ask whether or not they do in class. Out loud.)
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Dear LDS - are the gold plates still around? class wants to known teacher can't answer
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not that we know of.
Shouldn't you be paying attention rather than talking to us?
This doesn't seem like a good way for you to be getting your money's worth.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Now that I answered your question, you are solemnly obligated to ask your teacher whether or not Mo's eat their young.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Scott, I'm both shocked and disappointed in you.
The horns, man! They're supposed to ask about the horns first!
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Are Mormons Christians?
question atm
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why are you wasting time with that when you could be discussing baby roast recipes?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
from empirical knowledge, i know y'all to be good people.
so shush...
catholics weird me out more
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
No, we're not Christian, we worship a lizard god instead who tells us how to cook our babies.
(Yes, we're Christian. We believe in Christ as a divine son of God and follow His teachings and example.
And we don't know where the gold plates are.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: Are Mormons Christians?
What's a Christian?
Mormons believe that Jesus Christ suffered and died to atone for the sins of mankind. Mormons believe that no one can return to God without Christ's atonement.
I've found that the best way to make baby is to keep it simple-- either straight out barbecue, with maybe a vinegar-based sauce to offset the natural sweetness of the flesh, or roasted like kat suggests.
When we roast our babies, I like to butter the skin, and prepare a mint sauce. Roast baby is kind of a cross between turkey and lamb, that way.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
Some of the most normal people I know are Catholics.
(Episcopalians, now they're just nuts!)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Unitarian Universalists give me the heebie-jeebies. They're so mean...and divisive! Not to mention exclusionary.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Mormon baptism is the ONLY baptism apparently.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ask him if it's true that too much LDS makes ya grow pointy ears and wanna talk to the fishies.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Baptisms and marriage for the dead?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: Mormon baptism is the ONLY baptism apparently.
No, just the only one we consider valid.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: Baptisms and marriage for the dead?
By proxy. Still people's choice.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think it's a real discussion, KQ. Thor knows all this - he's trying to stir up something.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's why I'm giving the short answers.
(To clarify, they're in case anyone ELSE reading it is really wondering.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Ask him if it's true that too much LDS makes ya grow pointy ears and wanna talk to the fishies.
According to my two year old, yes.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:he's trying to stir up something.
Stir-fried baby, maybe?
I don't have any reason to think that Danlo knows all this, prior history here or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He was here for the massive, massive threads on all the topics brought up already.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah, but presence doesn't equal participation or knowledge.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
BTW, I would pay good money to see someone ask if Mormons eat babies in a comparitive religions class. That would be awesome.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: And we don't know where the gold plates are.)
I do....
Oh wait, I wasn't supposed to tell anyone about that, was I.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How much money is good money?
How do I prove I asked the question?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If I eat babies does that make me an honorary Mormon?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I'm totally asking the next couple of missionaries that knock on my door if they're "the ones that eat babies."
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
According to the intro to religion video I showed my kids, Mormonism is not just a branch of Christianity but also of protestantism.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It's not a branch of Protestantism the way that, say, Southern Baptists are-- we don't self-identify as having an intellectual or philosophical heritage derived from Luther, or Calvin, or any of the other Protestant fathers.
Instead, we believe that the LDS church derives its doctrine from modern revelation, which informs the understanding of scripture as well as reveals truths that are unique to Mormonism.
It's incorrect, IMO (and apparently the Supreme Court's, too! ) to say that Mormonism is a protestant religion.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How much money is good money?
How do I prove I asked the question?
Um, $50?
A video on YouTube, proof of registration in that class, and a link to the teacher's bio would suffice.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
"Photons have mass? I didn't know they were Catholic..."
Episcopalians: Catholic Lite!
Sorry, I had to do it. I, also, would be interested in seeing someone ask if Mormons eat babies. Since we all know the TRUTH. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: No matter what the teacher says:
Mormons eat babies.
(I double-dog dare you to ask whether or not they do in class. Out loud.)
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: I, also, would be interested in seeing someone ask if Mormons eat babies. Since we all know the TRUTH.
Of course they do. What did you think was inside that Jello?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
I have respect for the The Church of Jesus Christ and The Latter Day Saints. The people of the LDS I have been pretty nice to me in real life (hatrack doesn't count. lucky you) on a whole, and I got a great chance to know a guy I worked with at the bookstore who was LDS. He was a very nice, very cool guy. He found love and got married right as I left Houston.
And you know what?
I prayed for him to meet his love and marry her during most of the time I knew him. He was a good guy and deserved love. He found it.
For that I was happy. He did his mission in Mexico City. Was fluent in spanish. Which came in handy in Houston. Good guy, spoke well for the faith.
I doubt many LDS here have much respect for my religion.
I was raised in a Norwegian Lutheran Church and stopped attending in my early 20's. Norwegian Mythology, Superhero Mythology, Film and the Force weaved their way into what I believe, and I have lived a very diverse life all over America, from the farms of Wisconsin, the tops of skyscapers in Chicago, spent much of my life skiing in Colorado, a ton all over Texas, Dallas, Ft. Worth, Arlington, Austin, Denton, and horrible Houston, and I spent over a year living in Hollywood, and a summer in Arizona, lots of time in Vegas. Spent a long weekend in New York, several weekends in St. Louis, and a few weeks in Florida. Spent a Thanksgiving in Arkansas.
All of this has crafted my own personal religion, though I believe I believe in the same God that people who believe in all incarnations of the Great And Good God do, and I believe in the basic foundations of Jesus that most Christians do.
And I wrote this thread, because in My Religion in America class, today we spent the 1:20 of the afternoon on the church of the LDS. So I thought it was thread worthy. And I will now try to read the Book of Mormon.
I should ace the LDS part of the quiz, I am getting my ass kicked in this class, even though I know lots of pre info.
I got an 88 on my "The failure of Christianity in the last 20 years: From Champions of the Poor to Megachurch Conversion Capitalists." but only got 48 points worth of credit, due to turning it in 5 days later, and improper MLA citation footnote crap.
Sigh.
I have a respect for all religions that contain the base of God and don't advocate something that is TOTALLY bullshit, like bombing soccer fields and cafes.
I wish every one was a cool as me on this issue.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mormonism: weirder than catholicism but they're closer to home and they got this rockin choir so it's all good
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
No actual baby recipes to be seen.
This thread does not deliver.
edit: Danlo, if you do end up reading the Book of Mormon, I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you have concerning the text. It's a wonderful book, but it can be daunting for some by virtue of it's King James version Bible English.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:And I wrote this thread, because in My Religion in America class, today we spent the 1:20 of the afternoon on the church of the LDS.
Just as an side, we really don't like being called the church of the LDS. Our Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ" not the church of the Latter Day Saints. It is an important distinction. Most people will give you a pass if you call it the Mormon Church or the LDS Church, but the Church of the LDS seriously rubs me the wrong way. The Church belongs to Jesus. The church does not belong to us, we belong to the church.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
done. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No actual baby recipes to be seen.
This thread does not deliver.
If you had joined in the Hatrack Recipe challenge, you could have submitted baby as an ingredient. Then we could have seen how Mormon baby recipes differ from Jewish baby recipes.
The thing is that milk fed baby is naturally so tender and juicy that there really isn't a wrong way to cook it. I think it turns out particularly well roast on a spit with an apple in its mouth but you can really do anything with it. Baby cordon bleu, baby schnitzel, and baby with jerk seasoning are all excellent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: done. The Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints.
Well technically, it's "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I agree with Rabbit.
Tell me, BlackBlade, do you live in the western United States?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints"
If this were a band...What would Jesus Play?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Rabbit.
About the name of the church or cooking babies?
quote:Tell me, BlackBlade, do you live in the western United States? [/QB]
Last time I knew, he was attending BYU.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Scott/Rabbit: Actually I attend UVU, the comfy Orem middle man between the Y and the U.
Why do you ask Scott?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints"
If this were a band...What would Jesus Play?
If would rapidly be shortened to "JC and the LDs".
Jesus would obviously play lead guitar, do the lead vocals and probably play all the rest of the instruments whenever there was a solo. The rest of us would just do backup.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The rest of us would just do backup.
I would see Him more as the back up singer who is the real talent behind the band. The one that writes all the music, inspires everyone, and sings in the shadow.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
He'd be on bass. You never really notice him, but you'd really miss him if he wasn't there. Also it doesn't require much talent.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints"
If this were a band...What would Jesus Play?
WWJP?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
Episcopalians: Catholic Done Rite!
Fixed that for you.... Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Man, this thread is making me hungry.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I agree with Rabbit.
About the name of the church or cooking babies?
Both.
quote:Scott/Rabbit: Actually I attend UVU, the comfy Orem middle man between the Y and the U.
I ask, because it is generally only people from the west who push the idea of recipes on others.
Fie on your gravies and thick sauces, you heathen! Keep your cream-of-mushroom-and-baby casserole, for it is an abomination in mine sight!
Simplicity! That's how to bake a baby.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
It is funny to me that "The Church of the LDS" offends more than "eating babies"...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Who do you think got offended?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Who do you think got offended?
The Rabbit (speaking for the whole church of the lds I think...
"Just as an side, we really don't like being called the church of the LDS. Our Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ" not the church of the Latter Day Saints. It is an important distinction. Most people will give you a pass if you call it the Mormon Church or the LDS Church, but the Church of the LDS seriously rubs me the wrong way."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I ask, because it is generally only people from the west who push the idea of recipes on others.
Fie on your gravies and thick sauces, you heathen! Keep your cream-of-mushroom-and-baby casserole, for it is an abomination in mine sight!
Simplicity! That's how to bake a baby.
Now, now Scott R, I am child of the western states and rarely ever use a recipe and while campbell cream of mushroom soup is an abomination that should be banned in the WW, a fine brown gravy or well made hollandaise sauce can go quite well with Baby.
Have some sympathy on the neophites. If you aren't an experienced cook, a good recipe is a way to learn.
Here's an excellent on for Roast Suckling Baby
quote:Ingredients 1 (15 pound) suckling baby Kosher salt and cracked black pepper 1/2 cup chopped garlic 1/2 cup finely chopped parsley 1/4 cup chopped fresh thyme Salt and fine black pepper 3 bay leaves 2 tablespoons cumin 2 cups julienne onions 6 oranges, halved 3 limes, halved 3 lemons, halved 1/2 cup olive oil 1 cup red punch Rice and hazelnut Dressing
quote:Edited to remove tasteless directions for this recipe
.
If you need, I can provide a recipe for the rice and hazelnut stuffing as well.
[ October 17, 2008, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pfah. Foolishness!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That rice and hazelnut dressing looks mighty tasty. I could be persuaded to use it on a baby.
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints"
If this were a band...What would Jesus Play?
Drums. It the drums that tie all the other players together keeping them in time. Jesus was perfect, so he would have perfect timing. Plus, he has the perfect hair for when he goes crazy during the drum solo.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
How come more TCOJCATLDS people don't have long hair.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*measures* I have long hair.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: How come more TCOJCATLDS people don't have long hair.
Because there aren't any TCOJCATLDS people? Perhaps you meant the TCOJCOLDS?
Maybe we don't have long hair, because we spend so much time splitting them that they break off.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I have too many kids to have long hair.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: It is funny to me that "The Church of the LDS" offends more than "eating babies"...
I think "mildly bothered" might be better than "offended" in this case. We do say "LDS" and "Mormons" all the time, and neither of those refer to Christ. That's just conventional shorthand. Deliberately omitting Christ's name when naming the Church, as happens in quite a few news articles, is a little more annoying, and hints at a whole different set of concerns, but I don't think Thor was doing that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think mildly bothered is still a bit too strong. It is important to us as Latter Day Saints that we belong to "The Church of Jesus Christ". It is a factual error I thought was significant enough that it should be correct, but I wasn't in the least offended by it. I'd compare it to how I might feel if someone I just met mispronounced my name or perhaps addressed me as "The" rather than "Rabbit". It would be worth correcting but I wouldn't even be mildly bothered unless the persisted in doing it over and over again after I'd corrected them.
"Eating babies" is a running joke at hatrack so there is no comparison.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Right. That's the only kind of bothered I feel as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Maybe we don't have long hair, because we spend so much time splitting them that they break off.
Oooh!
*steals*
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
mormons day 2
moved from ny ohio missou illi to utah
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Mormon history in a nutshell.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: How come more TCOJCATLDS people don't have long hair.
You obviously don't know many LDS if you think this.
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Edmund Tucker was a douche.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Edmonds and Tucker were both esteemed Republican Senators. OPPS: I mispoke, they were both esteemed Republican members of the US House of Representatives.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Edmund Tucker was a douche.
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Edmonds and Tucker were both esteemed Republican Senators. OPPS: I mispoke, they were both esteemed Republican members of the US House of Representatives.
So you two are basically in agreement?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Not all Mormons think it is okay to call their political opponents pejorative names.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Edmund Tucker was a douche.
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Edmonds and Tucker were both esteemed Republican Senators. OPPS: I mispoke, they were both esteemed Republican members of the US House of Representatives.
So you two are basically in agreement?
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
No. By rule of law, only Hatrackians are only allowed to agree with me once, and never on Mormon related issues.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I guess I don't even agree with me. I finally looked him up. George F. Edmonds was a Republican Senator from Vermont. He also is credited with writing the Sherman Anti-trust Act. I very much doubt, that I would have agreed with much that he stood for. I suspect that Unicorn feels the same. Is disagreeing in tandom tatamount to agreeing?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Then we could have seen how Mormon baby recipes differ from Jewish baby recipes.
You know, atheists eat babies too. It's just that Mormons make such a big deal about it, and nobody pays attention to atheists anyway.
BTW, I was sitting at an intersection today and I saw two young men wearing white shirts and ties, with name tags. I almost yelled out the window to ask if they ate babies, but decided not to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Then we could have seen how Mormon baby recipes differ from Jewish baby recipes.
You know, atheists eat babies too. It's just that Mormons make such a big deal about it, and nobody pays attention to atheists anyway.
Those searches should be done with quote marks to be accurate.
1. "Atheists eat babies": 239 2. "Jews eat babies": 284 3. "Mormons eat babies": 48 (one of which Google Desktop found on my computer -- Hatrack, from my cache)
HAH! We win!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
1. Atheists eat dead babies (1,020,000) 2. Jews eat dead babies (251,000) 3. Mormons eat dead babies (92,900)
With quotes: 1. "Atheists eat dead babies" (4) 2. "Jews eat dead babies"(18) 3. "Mormons eat dead babies" (3)
Since the ones with quotes were almost exclusively from single forums I vote to throw out the results. Atheists win.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Then we could have seen how Mormon baby recipes differ from Jewish baby recipes.
You know, atheists eat babies too. It's just that Mormons make such a big deal about it, and nobody pays attention to atheists anyway.
I'm only finding 198,000 for mormons eat babies Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Dead babies?!?
Ew, you can have 'em!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You have to take into account that Mormonism has only been a concern in theological circles for (at most) 180 years; Jews and atheists have been around significantly longer.
In terms of historical proportion, Mormons eat MANY more babies than either Jews or atheists.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Am I the only one who gets all squirmy when people deviate from the "Mormons eat babies" joke (which was kind of funny) into detailed recipe territory? I know it's a joke, but it really bothers me.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Brinestone, If it helps at all, is a recipe for baby pig.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No. It makes me kind of squirmy too.
I get the joke, and I'm generally in favor of taking stupid stereotypes to ridiculous extremes for humor value, but this one makes me uncomfortable.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Me three. And yes, I know it's all in good fun.
I sent the baby lobster in a pot link to a friend, and she was squicked out by that, but that was still funny to me. So it's just a matter of thresholds.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
If it helps any, I think the eating babies slur is pretty common. I think it was levelled against Christian missionaries in central America, against Christian missionaries in China during the colonial period, Satanists in the US, and so forth.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brinestone: Am I the only one who gets all squirmy when people deviate from the "Mormons eat babies" joke (which was kind of funny) into detailed recipe territory? I know it's a joke, but it really bothers me.
I got squirmy too, and at first I was a little unhappy with Rabbit. But I had to recognize that the recipe wasn't actually more terrible than any of the other talk of eating babies - it was just bringing the joke into sharp focus. It forced me to recognize what was being joked about, in other words. I concluded it was just as funny as the other posts about eating babies, but I will also perceive all of those jokes to be darker and edgier than I did before.
Sometimes I've seen (or made) jokes about kicking elderly women [with the intent of parodying character assassination or simply shock humor]. I think this would make people significantly more uncomfortable if it included a detailed description of the footwear, the placement of the kick, and the resulting trauma.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
There's a long history of accusing opponents of cannibalism. Someone I read once even went so far as to claim that there have never been any cannibalistic societies, only societies accused of cannibalism by their neighboring societies. I wonder if anyone feels the urge to research that question? I'm too lazy. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Okay, so I looked into it a bit. This is from the article on cannibalism in Wikipedia.
quote: William Arens, author of The Man-Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (New York : Oxford University Press, 1979; ISBN 0-19-502793-0), questions the credibility of reports of cannibalism and argues that the description by one group of people of another people as cannibals is a consistent and demonstrable ideological and rhetorical device to establish perceived cultural superiority. Arens bases his thesis on a detailed analysis of numerous "classic" cases of cultural cannibalism cited by explorers, missionaries, and anthropologists. His findings were that many were steeped in racism, unsubstantiated, or based on second-hand or hearsay evidence. In combing the literature he could not find a single credible eye-witness account. And, as he points out, the hallmark of ethnography is the observation of a practice prior to description. In the end he concluded that cannibalism was not the widespread prehistoric practice it was claimed to be; that anthropologists were too quick to pin the cannibal label on a group based not on responsible research but on our own culturally-determined pre-conceived notions, often motivated by a need to exoticize. He wrote: “
Anthropologists have made a no serious attempt to disabuse the public of the widespread notion of the ubiquity of anthropophagists. ... in the deft hands and fertile imaginations of anthropologists, former or contemporary anthropophagists have multiplied with the advance of civilization and fieldwork in formerly unstudied culture areas. ...The existence of man-eating peoples just beyond the pale of civilization is a common ethnographic suggestion.[26] ”
Arens' findings are controversial, and have been cited as an example of postcolonial revisionism .[27] His argument is often mischaracterized as “cannibals do not and never did exist”,[citation needed] when in the end the book is actually a call for a more responsible and reflexive approach to anthropological research. At any rate, the book ushered in an era of rigorous combing of the cannibalism literature. By Arens' later admission, some cannibalism claims came up short, others were reinforced.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry if I crossed the line in posting an actual recipe. There is actually a joke embedded in there. The marinade is made with red punch instead of wine, but alas that appears to have been too deeply buried to have made it past the tastelessness of the rest of the post.
Sorry
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This thread seems to be entering the doldrums. Only one thing to do.
that is clever, Rabbit. If the forum had a strikethrough font tag available, you could have hit us over the head with it (that's the only way I would have caught it in a pretend baby recipe).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: There's a long history of accusing opponents of cannibalism. Someone I read once even went so far as to claim that there have never been any cannibalistic societies, only societies accused of cannibalism by their neighboring societies. I wonder if anyone feels the urge to research that question? I'm too lazy.
Yes, accusing a society of cannibalism is a classic slur and it is doubtful that cannibalism ever exist as it is portrayed in popular culture (i.e. cultures that hunted people for food). In the Americas, there was actual incentive given to accuse peoples of cannibalism because Spain made it illegal to murder or enslave the Ameri-Indians unless they were cannibals. Follow that ruling, suddenly every Ameri-Indian group that fought back or had valuable territory were found to be cannibals.
Unfortunately, the history of unjustly accusing peoples of cannibalism makes anthropological research in this area highly controversial. There is however substantial evidence for two forms of cannibalism. The first is cannibalism during times of famine which has been documented in modern times (i.e the Donner Party, the plane crash in the Andies) and there is substantial evidence that cannibalism became quiet common during periods of famine in medieval Europe.
The second is ritual cannibalism and there is compelling evidence that many societies have in the past (and possibly even in the present day) practiced various types of ritual cannibalism. For example the kuru in Papua New Guinea have an extraordinarily high incidence of Creutzefield-Jakob syndrome which is believed to be spread by burial rituals in which the brains and other organs of the dead are eaten. This practice has been banned but there is some question as to whether it has actually stopped.
There is also compelling evidence that many societies practiced some form of ritual cannibalism which may have involved eating parts of honored dead, eating respected enemies killed in battle and possibly eating people sacrificed in religious ceremonies. It is reported that after Captain Cook (or at least part of him were eaten by the Hawaiians. It is reported that being eaten was a honor reserved for the greatest chiefs and this indicated the high regarded the Hawai'ians has for Cook, even though they killed him (probably because he was defending men who had stolen from them). Evidently many cultures have believed that one could gain the virtues (strength, bravery etc) of a deceased warrior by eating his flesh.
There was a very controversial book, Man Corn, published about 5 years ago which documents the extensive evidence that ritual cannibalism occurred at Chaco Canyon (Northern New Mexico). Although Chaco was abandoned over 800 years ago, the Pueblo peoples of the region consider themselves descendants of the occupants of Chaco Canyon and revere Chaco as a holy site. The modern Pueblo religion involves veneration of ancestors (but definitely not ritual cannibalism) and so this is a highly inflammatory issue. A lead archeologist who is also Puebo Indian, announced when the first presentations on this were made that he would not believe it unless they found human remains in human dung, which then they did. After which he announced he would not believe that this was more than an isolated incident.
When you consider that the US undertook a systematic genocide of the Ameri-Indians, that these people today continue to suffer from prejudice and extreme poverty, and that cannibalism was indeed one of the lies told to justify their oppression -- it is not at all hard to understand why there would be so much controversy of archeological evidence of cannibalism, even if ancestor worship was not involved.
There is understandably much less controversy over the discovery of evidence for Cannibalism among the ancient Celts. It also gets a lot less press and one wonders whether that isn't evidence of continued prejudice in our society.
[ October 17, 2008, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
My religion doesn't eat babies.
We like to eat 18 year old girls.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Don't we all?
Posted by Cashew (Member # 6023) on :
Yeah but how do you get them into the pot?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
What pot? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: What pot?
I've never needed a pot in the past either.
This is about the limit of BlackBlade's crudeness when on a forum.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It's not about how you get the girls into the pot, it's how you get the pot into the girls.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I'm not sure, tell 'em it's oregano?
You know, reading this thread has given me an inexplicable desire to read Jonathan Swift. How odd.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: It's not about how you get the girls into the pot, it's how you get the pot into the girls.
Brownies. Chocolate flavored baby!
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
You just put a device that displays facebook into the pot, and the girls wait in line to jump in.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It's not too hard to believe in ritual cannibalism, as the idea seems pervasive in our culture as well. Erstwhile poster Paul once told me that if I killed and ate the people around me I would gain their powers. (He has a sick sense of humor, as some may remember.) I think the idea may have turned up in various superhero type stories, as well as folk tales of different places. There's a sense in that we Christians partake of Christ's nature when we symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood. It's not too hard to imagine people doing the same for their beloved departed ones.
Of course cannibalism of people who are already dead in order to ward off starvation doesn't even count as cannibalism in my book. That's just plain good sense. Taboos like that aren't meant for life and death situations. But any time you eat human flesh it should be only from people who didn't die of disease, of course, preferably those who starved to death themselves or else froze, or died of impact (in the case of an Andes plane crash). And human flesh should be cooked very very well, if at all possible.
If many cultures eschewed pork because there are several diseases we share with pigs, and it's not safe to eat unless extremely well-cooked, then what of humans, who share ALL our diseases? Definitely it makes sense to choose carefully the youngest and healthiest, and cook thoroughly, in the extreme event that anthropophagism becomes necessary. And you heard that on hatrack, the source of much wisdom of an arcane nature, don't forget!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Too bad Sylar already said that he doesn't eat brains, otherwise he could gain Christ's power by taking part in Communion.
Posted by TH (Member # 11441) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Too bad Sylar already said that he doesn't eat brains, otherwise he could gain Christ's power by taking part in Communion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Tatiana, is there a website that lists ALL of the conditions when it's OK to eat human flesh?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) to say that Mormonism is a protestant religion.
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
How odd.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)