Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Whether I personally would ever resort to
>>>cannibalism, has nothing to do with whether
>>>I consider it a wrong. It's a mostly wrong
>>>type of thing in my opinion.
>>
>>The KILLING of the person eaten is an ABSOLUTELY wrong
>>thing. The eating is irrelevant.
>
>
> What if they volunteer themself to the group so the
> rest may survive?

That's assumed not to occur, and I never said anything
about a group, you ****ing slovenly idiot; I clearly
specified two people, and only two people. In any
case, the "volunteer" could always commit suicide
first. We are assuming the survivor kills the other
person.

>
>
>>Let's change it. Say you and your skanky piece of
>>sushi partner are in a mountain cabin miles from
>>anywhere. No one knows you're there. You're very
>>nearly out of food, and your vehicle is covered by 20
>>feet of snow.
>>
>>There is one pair of snowshoes. They are owned by your
>>skank piece of sushi partner. One person can make it
>>out using the snowshoes. If you split the snowshoes,
>>you both die. If one person takes the snowshoes and
>>leaves, she will live, but the one left behind will die.
>>
>>Is it "just a little bit wrong" for you to kill the
>>rancid piece of sushi and take her snowshoes so you can
>>leave, make it to safety and live? Or is it absolutely
>>wrong?
>
>
> First of all [snip desperate attempt at evasion]

You can't address it. I knew you couldn't.

>
>>Understand: the rancid piece of sushi, who owns the
>>snowshoes, can legally take them and leave you behind.
>>Unless she voluntarily relinquishes them to you, you
>>may not legally take them and leave her behind. If she
>>wants to use them herself, leaving you to die, and
>>instead you kill her and take them for yourself, you
>>have done something ABSOLUTELY wrong. There is no
>>"mostly" or "just a weensy bit" about it: it is
>>ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
>
> If the snowshoes are hers, she can go and I'll just
> hope help arrives in time. Probably, we would
> realistically look at who's in better shape to make
> the trip to get help. I can't think of a place so
> remote that emergency people (maybe in
> snowshoes) can't get there in time.
>
> Another McGyver-like possibility is to rig up a
> sled of some kind. Take turns with who pulls
> using snowshoes and who rides in the sled.
>
> I can't picture either of us wanting to kill the
> other in your scenario.

I am asking you if you could somehow justify killing
her and taking her snowshoes, and clearly you can't
honestly address the (admittedly extreme) scenario,
because then you'd have to acknowledge that it would be
ABSOLUTELY wrong.

>
>
>>You may not *like* absolutes in life, skanky
>>carpetmuncher, but they're just a fact of life.
>
>
> I still say it's mostly wrong.

And you still cannot logically hold that belief, for
reasons I have made clear and which you cannot refute
except to repeat yourself stupidly.