Fifth Sailor I wish you’d all stop bickering and eat me.
Second Sailor Look! I’ll tell you what. Why don’t those of us who want to, eat Johnson, then you, sir, can eat my leg and then we’ll make a stock of the Captain and then after that we can eat the rest of Johnson cold for supper.
First Sailor Good thinking, Hodges.
Fourth Sailor And we’ll finnish off with the peaches. (picks up a tin of peaches)
Third Sailor And we can start off with the advocados. (picks up a two advocados)
First Sailor Waitress! (a waitress walks in) We’ve decided now, we’re going to have leg of Hodges …
Boos off-screen. Cut to a letter
Voice Over
Dear Sir, I am glad to hear that your studio audience disapproves of the last skit as strongly as I. As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs? Yours etc. Captain B.J. Smethwick in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.
His death sentence was “Thou shalt be disembowelled and then burned for 5 hours with a honey-vinegar basting every 30 minutes whilst being gently rotated until thou shalt reach an inner temperature of 165 degrees with a nice pinky-white and not too dry interior and a crispy skin.”
Ah, hello. Well first of all I’d like to apologize for the behaviour of certain of my colleagues you may have seen earlier, but they are from broken homes, circus families and so on and they are in no way representative of the new modern improved British Navy. They are a small vociferous minority; and may I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit, but all new ratings are warned that if they wake up in the morning and find any toothmarks at all anywhere on their bodies, they’re to tell me immediately so that I can immediately take every measure to hush the whole thing up. And, finally, necrophilia is right out. . . . Jenkins! No!
Fine by me. I can’t bring myself to get worked up about what happens to my body once I’m done using it (I do, however, want anything still useful to be donated to people who need it).
Nope, dead and rotting is actually more disgusting (and possibly more mad). Alive amounts to murder, which is horror, but I was talking about disgusting.
Nevertheless, glad BrainGlutton could make it to the thread.
And yes, it would be wrong to eat the cannibalism convict. People who disagree don’t get this thread I guess.
I really don’t get the outrage of the OP, by the way. Not only resorting cannibalism in time of starvation is essentially universal, but anyway how could he judge? Was he ever hungry? I sure never have been. I’ve no clue what it might feel like to not have eaten in a week, let alone in a month. Evidence shows that it’s bad enough for people to do something universally held as wrong and disgusting. I can only assume that in such a situation, it would resort to cannibalism too. And frankly, I’ve no moral qualm about it.
Well, besides being a weirdly hilarious topic, it raises interesting philosophical questions. Is cannibalism always wrong? How about kleptonecrocannibalism? Is one conclusion that people who survive starvation in this way have nonetheless done something wrong to achieve that? What if I don’t have any ‘moral qualm’ about pointing that out?
I think it must always be wrong, whether or not you have a ‘moral qualm’ about it. Now that it is confirmed in Jamestown, well it sure makes some of the founding fathers look pretty nasty, no? As to all the consequences there is a, uh, lot to chew on, so to speak, with the confirmation of these stories. It belongs in the pit because it is awful, but there is more to it than that.
Alright gentlemen, we now need to plan for the killing and eating of one another in outer space. We only have room for 2 large cooking appliances, so we’re going to need to think this through.
No. It makes them regular humans who will go to great lengths to survive. And wrt being always wrong, I can’t see what’s wrong with using the flesh of a dead man to allow another to survive. The alternatives are one dead man (cannibalism) or two dead men (no cannibalism). Surely, the former is a preferable result.