The user name, perhaps?
Obviously, you did not grok the joke.
Do me a favour willya?
:o
I think so. Thought provoking at minimum.
From what I understand, most carnivores have bad-tasting meat. Some kind of acid builds up when you eat meat? Please, someone correct me if I’m wrong.
So naturally we might think we should eat vegetarians, but the rub there is that most of them are all skinny and gangly, and that’s not good eatin’. I guess if you can find a slightly fat (not too fat, cause you want fat-marbled meat, not meat-marbled fat) then dig in!
Pigs are omnivores, just like humans: I don’t see why long pork would necessarily taste any worse than the normal variety. For that matter, animal based additives like blood meal or bone meal, are routinely part of the make-up of cattle or sheep feed.
I bet your average, slightly overweight, well marbled American would be delicious roasted over a slow flame and basted with a bourbon glaze.
Pure carnivores don’t seem to taste as well. althpugh of course taste is subjective.
It is true that pigs are omnivores, but the diet we feed pigs today is mostly corn and soy, not meat.
My Dad told me once that bear feeding on salmon tasted rancid and fishy, but bear feeding on berries was very tasty and sweet.
It’s purely cultural. It appears probable that every human culture practised culinary cannibalism at least periodically prior to the invention of agriculture, and many groups such the Indians of the Southwest and many Polynesians continued to practise it even after agriculture was developed.
So “we” don’t find it abhorrent. You do and I do to a lesser extent, but most humans don’t appear to have had any particular qualms about cannibalism.
It really is the flavor thing. Humans just don’t taste very good. There’s a high organ-loaf-to-usable-meat ratio, which makes cleaning a pain; and then you have to cook the muscle meat a really, really long time to make it palatable, and they just don’t make crock pots big enough.
Uh, is what I’ve heard, I mean. From other people. Who have cooked people. Which I haven’t. Not even that one time. Well, okay, maybe that one time. But I didn’t eat any. Well, not much. But I did take careful notes.
With a liberal dusting of bacon salt
The central figure in Robert Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land is from Mars. A small but crucial bit near the end involves ritual cannibalism. You really ought to read it, it’s one of his best.
I’d have no problem eating another human if it meant not starving. Granted, I wouldn’t kill someone to eat them but if I crashd in the Andes…you bet.
I’d try to find some stoners to dine on, they taste like Doritos and Hershey bars. Yummmmmmm.
Yeah, but some of them smell like patchouli.
Good point. A good scrubbing and an overnight bath in a strong marinade ought to take care of that.
I’d go as far as to say it’s a Sci-Fi classic.
Does this clown taste funny?
“Culinary” might not be the right word. No cite, but I read once that, while some human cultures practice cannibalism, no culture regards human flesh as just another source of protein; there is always some special religious, mystical, magical, or symbolic importance attached to the act.
If you do a search on Cecil’s columns we had a disucussion on this myth a while back. There is absolutely no to support it, and plenty of evidence to disprove it. Culinary cannibalism is exactly the right word to use. Prior to the invention of agriculture it seems that every group ate people as a source of protein, Absolutely no evidence of any religious, mystical, magical, or symbolic importance. The people were prepared, killed and cooked exactly like any other animal. We also have first hand written accounts of cannibals that confirm that fact.
Basically the idea that such cannibalism was somehow symbolic was perpetrated entirely by purveyors of the “noble savage” myth. The standard of evidence they require to accpet that cannibalism was culinary rather than cultural is simply imposssible to meet. As such it is unscientific, illogical and unsupportable. When the cannibals themselves state quite plainly and unashamedly in writing that they ate humans for food and these clowns still claim it was cultural it gives you some idea of their position.
If these peopel were treating people as a cultural source of food it was no different to the ways that a Jew might treat beef, and as such not in any way different to any other food source.
People have always eated peope.
What else is there to eat?
If the Juju had meant us not to eat people,
He wouldn’t have made us of meat
None the less
I won’t eat people
I don’t eat people
Eating people is wrong
(And it’s just not cricket)
Let us say rather that the way people as food was not a lot different than any other animal as food. It appears some people did things like thank the animal’s spirit or apologize for the nessesity of killing it. It’s hard to tell, such peoples were generally pre- or not literate and thus records are few, biased or guesswork. The cave art in France seems to indicate *some *sort of ritualism in the hunt. We have little solid evidence of exactly what went on in early cannibalism: there are the caves at Honne and the much disputed Aztec cannibalism, which certainly had ritualistic elements. Not much is solid and much is disputed.
So, insofar as killing an animal for food *for some peoples *had taboos, rites and shamanistic ceremonies surrounding it, so *apparently *did eating people. *Or not. *
But yes, an Observant Jew requires his beef be slughtered in a certain special religous-required way, by a certain special individual; so I guess your analogy isn’t that far off. wiki "*# Mammals and fowl must be slaughtered in specific fashion: slaughter is done by a trained individual (a shochet) using a special method of slaughter, shechita. Among other features, shechita slaughter severs the jugular vein, carotid artery, esophagus and trachea in a single cut with an unserrated, sharp knife. Failure of one of these criteria renders the meat of the animal unsuitable. The body must be checked post-slaughter so as to be certain that the animal had no medical condition or defect that would have caused it to die of its own accord.