Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>I doubt it. Especially if he were to wait for someone
>>>else to die of hunger (or the elements) first. Eating
>>>an already dead body in an emergency probably
>>>wouldn't be very illegal, just gross.
>>
>>We're talking about KILLING the person, you stupid
>>****. That's what is wrong: KILLING the person.
>
>
> If a person kills another to survive via cannabalism,
> the circumstances would determine how wrong it
> was.

NO. If you KILL the person, you have committed a crime
and a grievous sin. The EATING is irrelevant.

> [snip babble]

The ONLY relevant question is: did the survivor kill
the other person? If so, then you have done wrong.

>
>
>>>>>Even though I don't think I would do it myself,
>>>>>it's a valid choice in an emergency
>>>>
>>>>It is absolutely not a "valid" [sic] choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why? Even if the person eaten has died naturally?
>>
>>Because the person DIDN'T die of natural causes, you
>>confused, muddled, stupid, slovenly ****-for-brain. I
>>SPECIFIED at the very beginning of the example that you
>>KILLED the person.
>
>
> Settle down.

**** off. I specified at the very beginning that the
survivor killed the other person, and you ****ED UP,
AGAIN, by talking about the survivor eating an already
dead person. You are ALWAYS sloppy like this.