Why shouldn't I eat a baby?

B-But... it's so soft and fatty~~~

=.=
( o

You shouldn't eat a baby because it's small and there isn't much meat on there to be enjoyed. If you're going to eat a human, make sure they're at least three. Still soft, and there's more there.

No, no. Use the young ones as child bearers, the older ones as milk providers, and then slaughter the rest for meat:

In what terms do you define a baby? There are many ways to say one is a baby; in a physiological perspective a baby is a human being who is in his/her first stages of life. He cannot talk, cannot think, nor can he defend himself.

In a psychological way, a baby is referring to those who have lost themselves, and they have no direction in life, defenseless, helpless, drifting along in the current that we call life. A child knows what he must do, and he does it. He/She has a will to live, to enjoy everyday of his life. He will think that life is simply the best. Adults on the other hand, just go with the flow, they go to work because they have to, they raise their families because they have to, and they die because they know they have to die.

Can you eat a baby? You can. You have that power. It is not anyone else's decision that gives a definite conclusion to your thinking, you may consult others' advice but in the end you can ignore those words. The strong will overtake the weak, and it is up to the strong to decide whether they will coexist with them or not. Whether you will use that power to consume the baby or whether you spare yourself the trouble and leave it alone, it is always your decision. I cannot make you eat it, nor can I make you leave it.

yes that true but i like it when fakku questions my intelligence

...how about because its a innocent human being that hasn't done anything to your or anyone?

I don't get why anyone would want to do this. I generally go by a live and let live philosophy, so i am generally not one to dictate how other people should live there lives. But i don't understand the reason behind killing a baby. I don't believe morality has to be so complicated like some people are making it out to be. We are all human beings, so even if you're not religious i think people should be able to agree on the notion that eating a baby is wrong.

((where is this sauce from D:))
Oh and to once again provide on the topic, why should you not eat a baby? With the amount of sugars and potential energy from their fat reserve, it could be easy for a psychopath such as yourself to abandon any moralic clause and eat it without disdain!

Listen you would be Jonathan Swift, if for nothing else consider this logically, how many people do you think you could beat in a fight? Then consider this, how many people would be enraged by you consuming said baby? Obviously the latter is a far higher number and that's in a society without laws. Now factor in the applicable punishment combined with public outrage. If you wouldn't be sentenced to death then your only hope to be truly safe is a timely exodus from anywhere they know of you remotely. Consider then how vast media is and how far it reaches. You couldn't feasibly escape from it. Lets say though that you do by some miracle. Then what? All of your resources will be depleted in the processes and you'll have nothing. Society is the logical answer why you shouldn't eat a baby you dolt, because logically there is no way that you'd be able to live, let alone live comfortably. There's strength in numbers and majority opinion and playing the nonconformist is just stupid. Start marching to the beat of society's drum and learn that you're not exempt from what others think. Contrary to what you were told as a child you ought to be concerned with what others think of you because there's a lot more of them then there are of you.

I realize you said "assume I don't get caught", but that's not logically feasible either. How can you think that none of the 14-some billion eyes on the planet would have missed that? There's going to be evidence, there's going to be some level of survailence, and you'd probably have to walk past quite a few people along the way. Chances are someone's going to notice and chances are that that person won't approve. You can't argue under the assumption that you'll go unnoticed, it's not logically possible for literally not a single person to know about it. That assumption should be considered null if we're arguing in a real-world scenario. It leaves the affirmative side in this debate as a moving target and should not be counted. Thus the entire basis of the argument posted by those in affirmation of eating babies is null because ideal-world conditions do not exist not will they exist.

Those in affirmation cannot claim non-uniqueness in my argument since the ideal-world argument has been proven null. Those in affirmation cannot claim a lack of topicality because in scenario I create features real-world circumstances and establishes a scenario based in actuality rather than theoretical scenario with idealistic circumstances and a suspension of practicality.

Incidentally I was a debater at the national level in high school, however it has been a while.

Saucey sauce.

Why shouldn't you eat a baby? Because race car.

While I respect your point of view sir, there is a logic in not eating babies just as there is within the practice. Without children the world will come to an end at the last generation allowed to live. Protecting children allows humanity to continue it's legacy and will foster future advanced within the species. If eating one baby is considered alright then how can you defend any others? Without a safeguard being placed on the stock we've entrusted the continuation of our species, then what's to stop it from ending. There is no way to difinitively say that in infancy er can determine the actions of an individual or measure their potential. Without gauge to determine what an individual will be worth or what they will accomplish then ending all possible outcomes of that life is the same as burning stocks in a new corporation. It could turn out to be Flickr it Enron, but there's no way to determine that. The individual you trade for a single meal could provide you with meals for the rest of your life. Logically taking the gamble is the better option. perhaps you contend that a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush, but trading an egg laying hen for a single chicken dinner is foolish. Think in terms of potential marginal gain.

throwing away the average human beings feelings and inhibitions there isn't really a reason to prevent such a thing. The only things that prevent us from doing so are social norms and a lack of need. The simple answer is the Joker was right,

"You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other."
- The Joker

Nice to know you get your philosophy from fiction movies based on comic books.

It is, of course, absolute bollocks, and, if you recall from the movie, when he tried to prove that...it failed in a stupendously epic fashion.

The simple answer is, if the Joker was right, we wouldn't have rules in the first place. We wouldn't impose morals on ourselves, we wouldn't try to strengthen the morals we have now. The Joker was wrong. Plain and simple.

Well it goes against my morals and i don't see any reason to eat one unless is a life death situation.

Well you know babies are fresh so they would have a good flavor, but wouldnt you rather want to curb-stomp a baby?

Yes, obviously fresh balls of fat and cartilage dipped in amniotic fluid,urine, and coagulated blood would have a good flavor + getting that "delicious" snack all over the floor is obviously a great idea.

I'll answer you questions from your first post in order:
Personally, I think you shouldn't eat a baby because life actually has inherent value, or at least human life would (in a logical sense. You're clearly are ignoring any emotional responses), contrary to your philosophical stand point. The reason that life has value is that life finite and death is infinite. Therefore holding on to the process of life for as long as a living being can is good and natural because it provides experience and possible satisfaction for the coming of death and whatever you may believe comes after death.
Technically if life had no value, it would be morally permissible to kill, but considering that people don't like other people dying, it would impractical to do so.
So why shouldn't you kill a baby, Mr. Absurdest?
Well, babies have the potential to grow and become adults, adults who can advance technology, philosophy, and other aspects of life. The theoretical baby you are about to roast, could expand the nihilist into reasoning the rest of the world under your banner of belief, or do something else of value to you, but that would be squandered if you roasted and ate its flesh. In any situation where you take human life, you cannot avoid the pragmatic long-range effects of your actions (or you could say I'm Utilitarian that way)
Babies aren't that different from other human beings except for their potential, (and their cute-ness :3) and if we want to play these logic games, than babies are unpredictable of their future while they are still babies (I assume a baby is younger than 2 years of age).

You wanted your long term answer: That's mine. :)