|
if you were stuck in a hole with a couple other guys and you were out of food (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Sunsnail |
| I would pick my least favorite out of the two other guys and kill him in his sleep. Then eat him... I'd probably go for the calf muscles first. |
|
|
| enferno |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
I would pick my least favorite out of the two other guys and kill him in his sleep. Then eat him... I'd probably go for the calf muscles first. |
what about the sperm? you could live off eachother's manayse for weeks! |
|
|
| barbina |
| quote: | Originally posted by enferno
what about the sperm? you could live off eachother's manayse for weeks! |
that came to my mind first ahaha |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by enferno
what about the sperm? you could live off eachother's manayse for weeks! |
impossible, what would they jerk off to? |
|
|
| Ivand |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
impossible, what would they jerk off to? |
each other. duh |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
I would pick my least favorite out of the two other guys and kill him in his sleep. Then eat him... I'd probably go for the calf muscles first. |
Nah, the organs are where its at, more nutrients.
I don't care what people say, if it was you're only option, your survival instincts kick in and the morality of the matter doesn't occur in your mind.
Read the book or see the movie, Alive |
|
|
| SuspicionVandit |
take a survey.
then smash heads of anyone who is not neccessary in this Hole government. Eat, ration, live. |
|
|
| Abercrombie |
| If she's showered and not on the rag, I could eat her for weeks. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| We have one of those threads popping up every month or so. My usual answer; without hesitation. Bite an artery and drink their blood for water and nutrients. Yummy. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
a famous case.:)
| quote: | [DIVISIONAL COURT]
THE QUEEN v. DUDLEY AND STEPHENS.
1884 Dec. 9. LORD COLERIDGE, C.J., GROVE AND DENMAN, JJ.
POLLOCK AND HUDDLESTON, BB.
Criminal Law - Murder - Killing and eating Flesh of Human Being under Pressure of Hunger - "Necessity" - Special Verdict - Certiorari - Offence on High Seas - Jurisdiction of High Court.
A man who, in order to escape death from hunger, kills another for the purpose of eating his flesh, is guilty of murder; although at the time of the act he is in such circumstances that he believes and has reasonable ground for believing that it affords the only chance of preserving his life.
At the trial of an indictment for murder it appeared, upon a special verdict, that the prisoners D. and S., seamen, and the deceased, a boy between seventeen and eighteen, were cast away in a storm on the high seas, and compelled to put into an open boat; that the boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more than 1000 miles from land; that on the eighteenth day, when they had been seven days without food and five without water, D. proposed to S. that lots should be cast who should be put to death to save the rest, and that they afterwards thought it would be better to kill the boy that their lives should be saved; that on the twentieth day D., with the assent of S., killed the boy, and both D. and S. fed on his flesh for four days; that at the time of the act there was no sail in sight nor any reasonable prospect of relief; that under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every probability that unless they then or very soon fed upon the boy, or one of themselves, they would die of starvation:-
Held, that upon these facts, there was no proof of any such necessity as could justify the prisoners in killing the boy, and that they were guilty of murder.
INDICTMENT for the murder of Richard Parker on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty.
At the trial before Huddleston, B., at the Devon and Cornwall Winter Assizes, November 7, 1884, the jury, at the suggestion of the learned judge, found the facts of the case in a special verdict which stated "that on July 5, 1884, the prisoners, Thomas Dudley and Edward Stephens, with one Brooks, all able-bodied English seamen, and the deceased also an English boy, between seventeen and eighteen years of age, the crew of an English yacht, a registered English vessel, were cast away in a storm on the high seas 1600 miles from the Cape of Good Hope, and were compelled to put into an open boat belonging to the said yacht. That in this boat they had no supply of water and no supply of food, except two 11b. tins of turnips, and for three days they had nothing else to subsist upon. That on the fourth day they caught a small turtle, upon which they subsisted for a few days, and this was the only food they had up to the twentieth day when the act now in question was committed. That on the twelfth day the remains of the turtle were entirely consumed, and for the next eight days they had nothing to eat. That they had no fresh water, except such rain as they from time to time caught in their oilskin capes. That the boat was drifting on the ocean, and was probably more than 1000 miles away from land. That on the eighteenth day, when they had been seven days without food and five without water, the prisoners spoke to Brooks as to what should be done if no succour came, and suggested that some one should be sacrificed to save the rest, but Brooks dissented, and the boy, to whom they were understood to refer, was not consulted. That on the 24th of July, the day before the act now in question, the prisoner Dudley proposed to Stephens and Brooks that lots should be cast who should be put to death to save the rest, but Brooks refused to consent, and it was not put to the boy, and in point of fact there was no drawing of lots. That on that day the prisoners spoke of their having families, and suggested it would be better to kill the boy that their lives should be saved, and Dudley proposed that if there was no vessel in sight by the morrow morning the boy should be killed. That next day, the 25th of July, no vessel appearing, Dudley told Brooks that he had better go and have a sleep, and made signs to Stephens and Brooks that the boy had better be killed. The prisoner Stephens agreed to the act, but Brooks dissented from it. That the boy was then lying at the bottom of the boat quite helpless, and extremely weakened by famine and by drinking sea water, and unable to make any resistance, nor did he ever assent to his being killed. The prisoner Dudley offered a prayer asking forgiveness for them all if either of them should be tempted to commit a rash act, and that their souls might be saved. That Dudley, with the assent of Stephens, went to the boy, and telling him that his time was come, put a knife into his throat and killed him then and there; that the three men fed upon the body and blood of the boy for four days; that on the fourth day after the act had been committed the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and the prisoners were rescued, still alive, but in the lowest state of prostration. That they were carried to the port of Falmouth, and committed for trial at Exeter. That if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so picked up and rescued, but would within the four days have died of famine. That the boy, being in a much weaker condition, was likely to have died before them. That at the time of the act in question there was no sail in sight, nor any reasonable prospect of relief. That under these circumstances there appeared to the prisoners every probability that unless they then fed or very soon fed upon the boy or one of themselves they would die of starvation. That there was no appreciable chance of saving life except by killing some one for the others to eat. That assuming any necessity to kill anybody, there was no greater necessity for killing the boy than any of the other three men." But whether upon the whole matter by the jurors found the killing of Richard Parker by Dudley and Stephens be felony and murder the jurors are ignorant, and pray the advice of the Court thereupon, and if upon the whole matter the Court shall be of opinion that the killing of Richard Parker be felony and murder, then the jurors say that Dudley and Stephens were each guilty of felony and murder as alleged in the indictment."
The learned judge then adjourned the assizes until the 25th of November at the Royal Courts of Justice. On the application of the Crown they were again adjourned to the 4th of December, and the case ordered to be argued before a Court consisting of five judges. |
|
|
|
| enferno |
| actually, i'd take and eat the flesh on their body that wouldnt' kill them right away, thusly keeping my meal fresh and from spoiling. without propper refrigeration, if we killed him he'd go bad after a few days |
|
|
| Lilith |
| Is it allowed to lower them moisturiser in a basket as well as spray them with a hose every now and then when they're naughty? |
|
|
|
|
