Yes it’s like bears, once they get a taste for blood they won’t stop at one, they need to be put down 
-
-
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I’d say no, but only if we have full certainty that the eaten person acted freely and under no coercion whatsoever. How can you guarantee that?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes because they’re insane enough to want to consume somebody
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's why we have involuntary commitment protocols
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s almost hard to judge, it depends on what the laws are where both parties live. I don’t think the person who kills and eats the first person should be charged for it. But I feel like it’s such a grey area...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can’t contract yourself out of the law
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The eaten part is redundant.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"consent = only necessary condition" is a low resolution political theory downstream consequences of state sanctioned cannibalism
-
Explain how this is "state sanctioned" it's two consenting parties doing something. Unless your agument is that by allowing it the state is sanctioning it, in which case then you're saying you have no natural rights and all rights are granted via government fiat.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.