What do you make of every culture having myths of cannibals or man-eating humanoid monsters? I thought it might have something to do with genetic memory of other hominids.
>>17270890There were probably groups of other humans at the time that enjoyed eating their fellow humans.
>>17270890>What do you make of every culture having myths of about chimpanzees, and bears?
>>17270898Brainlet. Look at 'giant cannibal' myths around the world. Even cannibal tribes have them as a distinct group from their cannibal neighbours, and certainly from animals.
Being eaten by a big guy is basically the scariest thing a child can imagine.
>>17270890cause there were actual cannibals back then. being characterized as monsters just came naturally>Even cannibal tribes have them as a distinct groupyou know cannibal tribe lore? tell me more
>>17270911The Hadza come to mind, though they aren't cannibals, they have a strangely evolution-like account of history, which might allow for a relict population of giant cannibals:>the first men were hairy monsters who lived in caves and caught and ate animals raw>The next men were hairless, but still cave-dwelling giants, and domesticated dogs>the generation after, our generation, made fire and bows, and lived in huts.The American Natives had cannibal tribes, like the Karankawa, and it was just a fact of life for their neighbours, but they also had man-eating monsters like the si-te-cah who were not quite the same as them, from different human stock at the least.. They also had the Wendigo, as a sort of intermediate form, transitioning from human to monster.Picrel is a description of modern African cannibalism.
Why is cannibalism looked down upon again?If you're gonna send an army in and murder enemy forces, you might as well not let the meat go to waste
>>17271002Probably for fear of getting eating by people as a motive, since it's something you can never eliminate (you can hide wealth, but not your flesh). But in reality it's not much of an issue because even cannibal tribes draw a line between themselves and others. There's an Amazonian tribe who call themselves 'people' (translated) and anyone not of their tribe 'prey'. Thinking of it now, all history is written by grainbrains, most tribes didn't have writing. So the tribes preying on human-herbivores would be demonised in all literature, since they didn't have their own. A last idea might be in how it completely undermines all Abrahamic religions. It's hard to think of man as unique when you've seen the inside of one, and realise it looks exactly the same as every other animal.
>>17270890self awareness requires an understanding that anything you do to others can be done to you. It is only natural that men who go out in the day and violently kill a small rabbit or squirrel will be forced to consider, eventually, that if a creature were bigger than them it could kill and strip and eat them just as easily. And so a monster is made of that fear. Most monsters are simple expressions of the fear that somebody will do to you what you have done to others.
>>17271016It's pretty funny that you seem to think looking inside yourself involves nothing more than opening your chest cavity.You must not be the introspective type.There's more to men than flesh and sinew.If you can't see that in other people you might just be nothing more than a meat puppet hylic yourself.
>>17271232Come on. I've got bones here from a human and they are the exact same as bones I use to make stock. Human organs are the same. There is actually nothing in a man unique to man.>muh spirit muh hylicCope. What's the source of it? I have looked inside myself, and I see that we are different from animals only in degree, not by nature.
>>17271276if I were to take your words seriously, I would be forced to conclude that nothing you have ever experienced through introspection differentiates you meaningfully from an earthworm or chipmunkindeed, you seem to think that consciousness itself is nothing more than some kind of emergent property that arises when a meat matrix attains an arbitrary level of complexityrather, that consciousness is universalit's not limited to flesh golems like yourself, it permeates all of reality and you merely partake in a small portion of itThe source of it? That IS the source of everything you are so ordinarily familiar with, all you know of your body are mere rationalizations concerning a peculiar phenomenological perception of it. I could very well ask what's the source of what you call your "body", something you seem to take for granted.there is more to nature than bones and fat, and other drapery
>>17271339>you seem to think that consciousness itself is nothing more than some kind of emergent property that arises when a meat matrix attains an arbitrary level of complexityYes, this seems more plausible than our bodies being otherwise identical to other animals, but endowed with some unique invisible, intangible, and entirely unquantifiable aspect. I could bash someone on the head and render him unconscious, has his 'spirit' left his body? Only to return later? How can you deny that that consciousness arises from the brain, when the state of the brain directly relates to our conscious state.If consciousness is universal how do you suppose it is found only in humans? Many animals can pass the mirror test and whatever else is set before them. Many retards are less intelligent than chimps or crows. So what makes a retarded human better than a chimp? Nothing.
>>17270890It's more likely it's because humans sometimes eat eachother
>>17270890I'm more interested in the other kind of "man-eating" monster...>On account of their "wild" nature, these creatures were often portrayed as lustful, capturing and raping villagers, the latter especially if the victim was female. Usually referred to as the jue (Chinese: 玃; pinyin: jué), these apemen purportedly lack females entirely and need to abduct and rape women to breed. The reverse is said for the "wild women" or "wild wives" (Chinese: 野妻; pinyin: Yě qī) or sometimes xingxing, where they would abduct and sling men over their backs, carrying them up the mountain to wed.
>>17271357>How can you deny that that consciousness arises from the brain, when the state of the brain directly relates to our conscious state.when your radio breaks, there is still a signalbut you can't hear it, because the radio isn't picking up and decoding that signalwhat you call the "brain" is really just an idea applied to perceptionsif there were no perception, there would be no "brain" to begin with>If consciousness is universal how do you suppose it is found only in humans? I didn't say that, much the opposite.It's not consciousness that makes men unique. Rather, we are differentiated from other beings by our nature. A nature that is not defined by the shape and composition of our bodies alone.You say that we can't tell the difference between animals and people because they both seem to have biological trappings, but I could just as easily say we can't tell the difference between the sun and the moon because both are in the sky appear to be constituted of what we call "light".We clearly can tell there is a qualitative difference between men and animals, just as we can tell the difference between more celestial entities.There is more to human nature than our body parts. When someone is injured, they don't become less human any more a dog stops being a dog when it loses a leg.Humanity is not an emergent property belonging to a collection of limbs and organs that suddenly disappears when one of these parts fail.
>>17270892yeah, guanxi china 1967 AD
>>17271397>>when your radio breaks, there is still a signalOur "radio" is the exact same as that of other animals, only larger, so they can no doubt hear a signal as ell. If it weren't altogether nonsense that is.>qualitative differenceThere isn't. At least, not in any way that matters. A braindead human might as well be a slug.>less humanIs picrel equal to us? If so intelligence has no bearing on 'humanity' and can't be used as an argument that we are distinct from other animals. If not, then some animals are superior to some humans.
>>17271422the soul is realmaterialism is a lieyou are also a hylic
>>17271458Why do you think the brain is like a radio?
>>17270890Neanderthal predation theory
>>17271276A wild npc appears!
>>17271473it's not the light that you believe we can see from the "sun" that is the true lightthat's just an appearanceclose your eyes, and the light seems to die for just a momentthis is an illusion, nobody would say that light stops existing just because you can no longer see itthe same is true of consciousness, it does not stop just because you close your eyesrather, it is the light within which is most true and directly accessible to those who are it's vessel and it's illumination is superior to that so-called natural light which casts a shadow upon the earthit cannot be shut out by a flapping of eyelids you can tune your brain like a radio, this has been a topic of discussion in the literature for at least a decaderadio signals can be produced by people, but they are a natural phenomenon that occur everywhere it's just an allegory, this shit is hard to explain any other wayusing light as another way of pointing towards that principle, a word like "illumination" is meaningless to a blind man who cannot imagine what it must be like to see colorthis deficiency does not mean he is less of a manbut the deficiency of a hylic is a spiritual blindness, not physical
>>17271397>when your radio breaks, there is still a signalYou idiots keep using this radio analogy even though it's obviously inadequate, I wonder which new age guru came up with it.The relationship between brain and consciousness isn't like that of a radio and signal. When you turn off the radio, the signal goes on without you, when you turn it back on, the signal does not pick up where you left off, it has moved on, might have become something totally different that you weren't privy to. Furthermore everyone picks up the same signal even if the radio equipment varies somewhat.In so far as anything is like radio signal, it's the reality around us that we pick up through our senses. That one behaves much like a radio signal, and it's why we share it, though it might be distorted somewhat by our equipment or signal quality.The relationship between brain and consciousness is more like a CD player/tape recorder and the recording. If you turn it off and on again, it resumes its refrain like nothing happened. If the CD is scratched, if the tape degrades, the quality of the recording degrades. If the CD breaks or the tape tears, entire portions may be lost or it may not be playable again. Modifying/overwriting the record modifies the recording. And if you smash the player there is no recording being played anymore, it's lost with the record smashed alongside it.
>>17271276Cook did nothing wrong.
>>17271458>>17271510>muh soulMassive cope for fear of death.
>>17271989the thought of an afterlife should scare you far more than the idea of total annihilationbut fedorautists aren't known for their grasp of perspective, and seem to think everyone feels the same way they do about oblivionprotip, the thought of nothing more than oblivion following death is actually comfortingeternal judgement and experiential suffering beyond this mortal coil is what you should fear
>>17271016>Aryan cannibalismA last idea might be in how it completely undermines all Abrahamic religions. The Biggest religion in the world and of the highly educated and "civilized' Western World is a Cannibal Cult.>Inb4 Christianity is a Kike cultAbrahamic cults are Eurasian and Christianity is a Greek-Roman cult
>>17270890I would guess that such legends are actually somewhat recent. When animals were still the biggest threat to early humans, they wouldn't make up humanoid monsters because big bears and tigers were much scarier than puny humans. Humanoid monsters became a thing when humans were obviously on the top of the food chain and other apex predators were extinct. Humans realized that now they were the most dangerous animals and the scariest thing they could imagine was now human-like. So how do you make humans scarier? Make them bigger, and have them want to eat us like those animals we used to be afraid of did, and there you get stories about man-eating giants.
>>17273147so your theory can potentially explain why basically every last culture on earth has stories of man eating giantsbut can you explain why stories about little people that also occasionally eat people are so common too
>>17273010Why would I even believe it in the first place? Judgement in the afterlife has always been a way to placate slaves, and make them think that they'll 'get theirs' if only they obey massa and live a miserable life in the here and now.>>17273103Yes, but his sacrifice wouldn't stand out if ten Jewusses had already been eaten that morning
>>17270890Back then OP, the world was much more unsafe and mysterious. There was no such thing as a “police force” in every city, no national database with census data for every citizen, no cameras, nothing to prove anyone did a crime except an eyewitness account. Rural areas were truly wild and it was not uncommon for people to go missing traveling on the road. It was not too far fetched to imagine some isolated clan or family existed that kidnapped and are travelers, indeed this was the case numerous times up until the 18th century.
>>17273269>Judgement in the afterlife has always been a way to placate slavesoh yeah bro, that's why ancient Egyptian Pharaohs read from the Book of the Dead, avoided the 42 sins, and did all that mummification shit to prepare their souls for deathbecause they totally weren't afraid of their heart weighing more than the feather of truth when put to the scales of judgement and being fed to crocodiles by Anubisfuck off underage fedora you will literally never understand religion you are the one who fears death here, that's why you reject any possibility that your actions in this life have lasting consequencesthe idea of being held responsible for sin terrifies you, that's why you close your eyes and pretend there's nothing in the hereafterthat lie is more comforting to you than the truth
Cuz it's scary stuff man. And real in some places.Simple as.
>>17273332>Egyptian Pharaohs read from the Book of the Dead, avoided the 42 sins, and did all that mummification shit to prepare their souls for death"immortality" through preservation of bodily remains, or the construction of monuments (pyramids, statues) has always been the chief kingly cope for death.
Oh wow, did you believe King Yama sends sinners to fucking HELL because he sits in judgement over the dead?YOURE A SLAVE LMAOEVERYONE LOOK HOW ENLIGHTENED I AM BY MY OWN INTELLIGENCE
>>17273357What religion do you follow? What do you believe? Why do you believe it?
>>1727089099% of human cultures from all of history have cannibalism as one of the biggest taboos. Therefore they have stories about how scary and bad this taboo is. Same as how most cultures have at least one story about how incest ruins everything.Why cannibalism is taboo in the first place is easy to understand. For one it's extremely dangerous due to easily spreading deadly illnesses including Prions diseases. Secondly it's directly adjacent to murder which is something cultures obviously have a problem with. There's really no way to have a regular supply of fresh human meat without murder. So saying that cannibalism is okay breaks down social cohesion by making everyone have to be untrusting and paranoid and watch their backs lest they wind up tomorrow's dinner. Thus the only societies that practice cannibalism have been desperate ones on small islands way over their carrying capacity who are already on a kill or be killed basis with their neighbors over insufficient food.
>>17273426>Why cannibalism is taboo in the first place is easy to understand. For one it's extremely dangerous due to easily spreading deadly illnesses including Prions diseasesMany people are immune to prion diseases altogether. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/jun/natural-genetic-variation-gives-complete-resistance-prion-diseasesIt varies by population but the real issue is that it is not heritable 100% of the time, so individuals in any population might be vulnerable, despite their parents or siblings being immune to prion diseases.I agree about the breakdown of social cohesion, but most cannibals practiced only exocannibalism.
>>17273494I explained the exocannibalism though. You only get it when you're already in an area where the population is already past carrying capacity and you're hunting down your neighbors on a regular basis anyway so why not eat them. After all you're killing them in the first place because there's not enough food on your tiny island. Unless you're in those exact circumstances you don't have a source of "consistent murder" in which to provide human flesh for consumption. Hence they are able to somewhat avoid the "breakdown of social cohesion" aspect. But even then it only works with these extremely small groups that don't extend past a single tribal encampment. It's impossible to make work with larger societies.
>>17273513This is a common trend in Polynesia, I'll give you that, but we also have sites like this:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herxheim_(archaeological_site)
>>17273525The weird context of Herxheim, being a giant pit of 1000 eaten people that was used in a single horrific mass killing, points to it being something different than "standard" cannibalism. There's no sign of cannibalism among the other German "Death Pits" of the Neolithic, implying this was not a normal or recurring cultural practice. Though the fact that the tribes of the LBK culture were all genociding each other in giant death pits may be related to the whole "consistent murder" aspect. One wonders if maybe they added the cannibalism to the standard Neolithic German mass ritual-killing because of some kind of famine lost to time?
>>17270898do you think people were retarded?
>>17270898if a modern man can distinguish between a chimp and a cannibal monster, then the ancestors definitely could.The hubris of the modern man to think that these people were just complete idiots.
>>17273793That book is the stupidest thing ever written. It makes no sense at all. Neanderthals did prey on S*piens but they were just ubermensch, not monsters.
>>17273551iirc the bones deposited at herxheim weren't from a single mass killing but were the result of years and years of slaughter. Aztecs also incorporated cannibalism into their ritualistic human sacrifice, I don't buy the functionalist argument that cannibalism only has its origins in the need to secure food or protein in famine/protein lacking diets or whatever. the act of cannibalism is incredibly dehumanising and demoralising for the victims and sets the practicioners apart as "real" people and the victims as cattle.that being said regularly practiced exocannibalism is very rare, historically speaking. most cannibal cultures (Amazonians, Papuans) practice endocannibalism as part of their funerary practices. for hunter gatherer societies it makes sense to view consuming a dead loved one as a sign of respect rather than letting them go to waste, and for sedentary farmer societies to view cannibalism as a predatory act separating real people from human cattle
It makes sense that through time there were tribes that incurred in cannibalism if just for the fact that hunting a human was less effort than hunting bison and such. I don't think it really was widespread.
>>17273228I never heard of stories about little people that eat people. Dwarves, elves etc. are usually depicted as trickster figuers, malicious or benevolent magical entitites, but not as savages.
>>17273426I don't think cannibalism really was such a universial taboo. It is a taboo for Western Christian culture which became dominant globally. But mainly cannibalism was rare everywhere, because think about it, how practical would it be to regularly eat people? Hunting people for meat is not practical since people are better at defending themselves than animals, so if you go hunting you might as well just hunt game that both has more meat and are less dangerous. You could keep slaves as livestock but then, if you already have slaves, you could get more food if you force them to farm and herd livestock rather than just eating them.So cannibalism was always either ritual (ie. people would eat their dead relatives in burial rites) or a last resort during famines.But Greek historians started this trend where they wrote about distant lands that they barely knew anything about, and would put Antropophagi in the most remote parts, along with other weird types of humans like headless men and dog-headed people. Later, as westerners explored more lands, they would continue including such figures in their accounts. Marco Polo too would write about cannibals and dog people living somewhere in Asia, because people in Europe were already expecting that distant land equals cannibals and dog people. This eventually led to a lot of real tribes being accused of cannibalism, mostly without evidence, although eventually some "cannibal" cultures were found, who practiced ritual cannibalism.
>>17270902UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>>17271016It's also a natural taboo, deep in our animal brains. Similar to incest. Watching an incest porn and actually frenching your mother are two totally different things. One thing you can maybe do (particularly if you are desensitized to porn) but the other is legitimately gross and will naturally repulse you. Cannibalisms is the same...thinking about it here, on a forum, seems not so bad but actually put dead human flesh to your lips and you will gag at it.
>>17270890https://news-zp.ru/society/2024/11/18/407497Only the Nazi white pigs enslave them. Go to hell you Nazi retard subhuman pig.Racist white pig who discriminates against Asians
>>17274327None of this is real, jackass. If you and your mother were stranded alone on an island you'd both be fucking within the first month, especially if she was premenopausal. It has nothing to do with porn.
>>17274327>seems not so bad but actually put dead human flesh to your lips and you will gag at it.
>>17274327>Similar to incest. Watching an incest porn and actually frenching your mother are two totally different thingsDoesn't appeal to me in the slightest. It's very circumcised of you to enjoy things like that.
>>17273803>Give me dat bussy, homo!!
>>17274742>>17274740>>17274383get a grip samefaggot
>>17274156>I never heard of stories about little people that eat people.There are plenty in the Americas.
>>17271389may be human + something other hybrids hybrids usually have problems with fertility at last one of the gender
>>17274889
>>17273803They were not ubermensch. They couldn't even figure throwing spears out.
>>17278806Those studies used random people to throw Neanderthal size spears, so obviously they didn't work. Once they got javelin throwers in they were fine.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46988459Also, picrel.
>>17273332>lie is more comforting to you than the truthYou just punched a mirror.
>>17278826Interesting. This has changed my opinion of them slightly. Still retards who got mogged to death, same for Denisovans.
>>17278837>no you, but unironicallyyou poor retarded simpleton, there is no blissful emptiness waiting for you in the beyond to absolve you of your crimesoblivion is a comforting thought to anyone with sense or a long rap sheet, Socrates expounded on this point but you have never read the Platonic dialogues so you will never know what he thinks about death, and it's too good to be truejudgement is terrifying and severe, because it's truetruth is both of these thingspeople who fear death generally prefer to believe there is nothing awaiting us after we pass away, because the thought that they could be held responsible for their actions by a power higher than man's own is too much to bear for themit's not oblivion you fear, it's judgement and you know it
>>17278873It's strange how non-sapiens get treated. The same "one race the human race I don't see colour" types genuinely believe that Neanderthals couldn't throw, speak, make tools, clothes, bury their dead etc. It's insanity. The fact is that Neanderthals were anti-social autists (but otherwise more mentally healthy than sapiens-no schizos etc.) with better eyesight, worse stamina, but faster and substantially stronger. These researchers measure advancement by "culture" which is meaningless, they just look at grave goods and determine their traits based on that. They don't seem to consider that they just didn't want to do certain things. Patagonians were like this. Perfectly fine people-the biggest on Earth and intelligent enough, but happy with their technology and not particularly interested in filling their graves with all their valuables like some retarded orientalid. A Finnish man in India would be the equivalent of a Neanderthal in Sapienland.
>>17278883>/x/Post Neanderthals or discuss cannibalism.
