- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- andfinally
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- andfinally
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/7708316
An Idaho state representative wants to build out the state’s law against cannibalism over fears that the composting of human remains could lead to humans consuming other humans. Republican Heather Scott floated a bill on Thursday that would make it illegal to serve “the flesh and blood of another human being” to someone who does not know or consent to it, The Idaho Statesman reports. Idaho already outlaws cannibalism and is the only state to do so, even though other states have laws that punish abuse of corpses. Human composting is legal in some states because it can be more eco-friendly than other methods like cremation. But rather than target composting, which would require a rewrite of rules for morticians, Scott figured it would be easier to expand the cannibalism law. She was apparently inspired by a clip from a prank TV show she had seen, in which personalities pretended to feed people human flesh in sausage links. “They didn’t tell the people, they fed it to t1hem,” she told the Statesman.
Why do so many people struggle with the difference between reality and fiction? It’s mind-boggling how powerful syncretism has become.
Who needs fact-checking when you are fuelled by outrage?
Dammit, you’re right. What’s most important in life is what feels good. Feelings are the most important thing, not facts or evidence. Of course, how silly of me.
It’s weird when I’m taught to be critical and skeptical whilst growing up, only to see those same people getting suckered into automatically believing dumb shit when they’re older.
I reckon the younger generations have to learn to do it in order to watch out for their elders when we aren’t as sharp as we used to be. So the wheel turns.
I live in the conservative stronghold of Washington State, a 20 minute drive to Idaho and an hour drive (country roads) to where this lay is in Bonner’s Ferry area. Let me tell you that they almost always, 99% of the time, can only make points by creating strawmen to beat. They don’t like something? They cant address it directly, it has to be this wild slippery slope argument where they make up a doomsday situation if that thing they don’t like comes to be. Half the time I don’t even argue with them about the thing they don’t like and end up pointing out how impossible the scenario they have built in their head is impossible.