@Shatov: i'm fairly sure that postmortem cannibalism could be allowed, though i'm not one to value the human body after it is dead. (I would happily see all bodies become property of the state, and in Ireland they do, there is a minster responcible to ensure your body gets buried correctly, which isn't the same really) I don't see why consent should need to be given.

I do think that organ donations being mandatory would benifit society at large. However i understand why we don't want corupt governments killing their prison populations and selling them as food for another country, and anything which allows dead bodies to be considered a useful comodity will likely lead to horrible abuse because humans are fucking jerks...

Still i'd prefer if you had to opt out of organ donations rather than opt in.

@T-7089: Public sex might very well disturb others?

well i suppose nudist beachs are the closest example in the real world (ignoring brothels - the kind of facility open to the public which you seem to support) Public nudist areas which are signed don't offend people because these people can avoid them. In some european beachs sunbathing topless is perfectly acceptable. In some states there is a movement to ban fat people from taking any clothes off at the beach because it is ugly.

I'm not in support of defending people's rights to not be offended or not see an ugly person. I do take issue with societies repression of sexuality but I would be willing to compromise and all sex in only well signposted public areas.

KaiserAl, you seem to have some more controversial views. I noticed that you like the work of Peter Singer.

We haven't had a hardcore and consolidated debate thread in a while. Why don't you start one up?

"I see nothing wrong with postmortem cannibalism provided the deceased gave his full consent in his last will and testament. Yes, there are health risks involved, but personal freedoms often trump the state's paternalism. Provided the corpse (and the consumption thereof) brings no health hazards to the general public, I don't see how a state can justify banning all cases of postmortem cannibalism."

I must agree with this. My gut reaction is to abhor the very act of cannibalism, and while I would never partake in it myself (never say never, what about an emergency?), I suppose I could not justify denying others whatever pleasure they may derive from fully consensual cannibalism.

The health risks that I noted in previous posts are most likely the evolutionary reason for why most humans have an unfavourable gut reaction to dead human flesh in general. It goes against every fibre within me, but that's because this fibre has been inherited from a long history of the dangers of the consumption of human flesh. Logically speaking, it would be inconsistent to my world view to outlaw fully consensual cannibalism. Yuck.

Sorry Kaiser, I mistook Peter Singer for someone else. Haha.

Who did you mistake him for? And I don't like his work so much as wish that he'd be stampeded to death in a petting zoo.

And as far as meaningful debate, how about monarchy vs. democracy? And i don't mean constitutional monarchy vs. republic, I mean absolute monarchy vs. direct democracy, that ought to stir the pot. Then again, it could be over and done, as I'm sure most would rather be ruled by one tyrant than a mob of well meaning folks. Eh, take the concept where you will.

the True King? yeah i've prefet an absolute democracy ruled by the True King any day, it is just a question of finding him and having him elected on a platform of removing all the corruption from the system.

Why remove the corruption? Why not simply remove the temptation for it? If we legalize all the things that allow "corruption" to exist, than we needn't fear it. And why do we need a system? Such a term implies an overarching monolith that controls everything, or at least tries to. I hate the very mindset that has allowed that vision of society to exist, and thrive.

Yeah, monarchy vs. democracy works, though you'd have to be active in debating monarchy because I think most people here would be for democracy. If you think it'll work, start a new thread.

@Kaiser: Why do we need a system? as it happens we don't but systems are successfuly and have removed the anarchist communes from their midst.

Some viral ideas spread by force of arms.

If you don't like anarchy, and anarchy doesn't seem viable, a better option might be, what do you call them, mutually overlapping jurisdictions? something like that. the idea being, why not belong to a state of your own free will, and not because they excercise a monopoly on justice in your area. The problems would be, of course, rogue nations that recklessly endanger others, but a consortium of all these micronations would need to exist to penalize such actions.

I'm starting the monarchy vs. democracy thread now, perhaps i'll see you gentlemen there.