All it would take would be Trump dropping a single line in one of his rambling diatribes about how he ate a guy once, and folks like this would do an immediate about face and push to legalize cannibalism.
Yeah then trump steaks could really make a comeback
He was a great guy, the best, so smart, just the smartest. He had a brain the size of a watermelon, it was just so huge. It tasted so good. It was so huge and jiggle. And so tender, you didn’t even need a knife we all just had spoons, they came from my great Uncle’s spoon factory. He had the best spoons, my Uncle, he knew everything about spoons. Do you all have a spoon guy? If not you need to get a spoon guy, you haven’t lived till you had a spoon guy.
in one of the only states that already has anti-cannibalism laws. a completely ignorant ‘lawmaker’
Gotta get those single issue voters somehow
I worry about the mental state of anyone who’s single issue is cannibalism.
On either side of the debate.
deleted by creator
Don’t worry you can join cannibals anonymous. They were a real help. Those first few months can be really hard.
This is the best joke I’ve seen in a long, long time.
Have you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair?
If that was your single take away from that book, you might want to reread it.
Do you have some reason to believe that was my only take away from the book, or are you only parroting Upton Sinclair, who complained about that exact thing?
A vote for me is a vote to double-outlaw cannibalism!
“I thought — this is going to be normalized at some point,” Scott said. “The way our society is going, and the direction we’re going, this is going to be normalized.”
“There is a lot of documentation out there,” Scott insisted. “If you just google it, people showing it, and how they’re doing it.”After watching a decade old David Spade show! 😂
Of the Republican party’s two main factions - the grifter wing and the rube wing - it’s pretty clear which one she caucuses with.
The absolute disconnect from reality truly is disorienting.
“I heard about a thing that seems so implausible as to be ludicrous. I won’t verify it. It has to be true!”
These people are living in a fantasy world that doesn’t remotely exist. It’s no wonder we’re so fucked.
Without looking at the article, guess what party she’s a member of.
The Donner Party?
Rim shot!
Both parties are against cannibalism, I’m pretty sure. Both parties are equally susceptible to hoaxes.
One party in particular makes a habit out of blowing up literal non-issues into doomsday political theater though.
One party in particular benefits more from making those non issues into dog and pony shows. The bullshit asymmetry principle.
No they aren’t equally susceptible to hoaxes, and you can tell that’s true because I can predict which party she’s from.
Both parties are equally susceptible to hoaxes.
Don’t confuse fallibility with gullibility.
The main difference is the “willful” part of ignorance.
Uh huh. Which party is this lady a part of?
Rep. Heather Scott, a Republican, introduced a bill that would expand the state’s existing criminal cannibalism law to prohibit any person from “willfully provid[ing] the flesh or blood of a human being to another person to ingest without such person’s knowledge or consent.”
Exactly
What’s the democratic equivalent of this? Or kitty litter in schools? Or any of the Q nonsense?
BoTh SiDeS!!1!11!!
If Biden made an anti-cannabalism speech, R’s would be coming out for it in hours. And don’t forget how Russia is totally cool with cannabalism for that tip of the hat to the far right.
I would argue any true libertarian wouldn’t be against cannibalism.
Republicans are mentally defective. They should have no say over anything of consequence.
If you’re wasting government time making something that’s already as illegal as cannibalism illegal then you should be declared unfit for office.
It’s not like you’d lose anything of value in the interim while you’re finding someone else. It’s not like she’s fucking doing anything.
“So, I wanted to address this because what I didn’t want to see is bags of compost with human bone fragments.”
“I didn’t want to see that in my Home Depot stores,” Scott said.
Sorry what??? Like what the fuck is happening in her brain? Having said that. I would totally buy the human bone meal at Home Depot.
She was upset because Washington legalized human burial without preserving the dead?
So, hold up. Are they worried that if you don’t preserve the dead they turn into zombies or something?
Only if you embalm them with Worcestershire sauce.
Give your meat a good ol rub!
pink…eye…
What, do you think the funeral industry mutilates corpses and soaks them in chemicals just for enormous profit? Don’t be a conspiracy theorist.
It’s definitely not a perfect business model, what happens if people stop dying, or all people are dead?!
They oppose anything that challenges cultural norms.
It’s because sooner or later they know we’re going to have to eat the rich and they’re getting a leg up before it starts.
Are we sure they weren’t trying to ban weed?
Jokes aside, this bill is problematic for a couple of reasons I can think of (although this bill isn’t going to pass unless big funeral throws money at it). It sounds like this bill would ban green burial practices. Embalming is not good, the chemicals leech into the ground and eventually can end up in the groundwater. And some of those non embalming burial methods are basically the equivalent of chaining yourself to a tree for the foreseeable future due to the way our culture treats burial sites - your body is protecting the existence of a forest or similar.
Another non-embalming burial is a traditional Jewish one. They wrap a body in a decomposable sheet and bury it in a hole in the ground. It’s pretty eco friendly too. Would this bill end up with freedom of religion issues?
Everybody’s gotta eat, I just happen to eat bodies. /s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aghori
They also practice post-mortem cannibalism
You guys are welcome to eat me when I’m dead. I cannot think of something I’m less concerned about.
The official statement of purpose of House Bill 522 states that the expanded law “has no fiscal impact,” because it “causes no additional expenditure of funds at the state or local level of government, nor does it cause an increase or decrease in revenue for state or local government.”
But it is revenue neutral.
