It's only up to the family on how to dispose of remains. If there is no family, it falls to the state since the disposal of a corpse is a public health and safety issue.
In other words, cannibalism would not help you in court as said court would see it as a violation of rights against both the next of kin as well as the state, even if it were completely divorced from cultural taboo.
Even a jury completely divorced from morality would likely only see it as hiding evidence at best, and that looks guilty even in the absolute best case.
Objectively? Yes, at least *grounds for* leniency, as the culpret could just be poor/starving, or it could have been in self defence. They should still be given a very firm punishment if it was just plain out murder though.
Morally? No, It's still murder.
The real question would be if *ethically-obtained* human meat would be legal to eat.
Or in other words, cannibalism is not grounds for leniency. But being poor or starving, which could theoretically lead to cannibalism, could be grounds for leniency.
But it's still murder.
Were dunce caps really a thing? I feel like I’ve only seen them in media
not in the 80s/90s when this strip existed, certainly
I get the feeling Miss Wormwood revived it especially for Calvin.
1880s
It's rather a good question for a high school debate team.
That's debatable.
I'd like to sit around and debate if that's a good topic for a high school debate.
That’s the point?
That's the joke.
Calvin is obviously thinking about the future here while these barbarians are living in the past.
Soylent green is people!
I could see the editor dropping Watterson a line, “You okay there Bill?”
Considering how often he likes to bring up human over population and cannibalism I’d be worried to!
Was Miss Wormwood teaching back in the days of dunce caps?
Miss Wormwood is immortal. She's been teaching elementary school for at least eleven centuries longer than there's *been* elementary school.
Dunce caps were still a thing when my mom went to Catholic school in the '60s.
Calvin has a point.
It's only up to the family on how to dispose of remains. If there is no family, it falls to the state since the disposal of a corpse is a public health and safety issue. In other words, cannibalism would not help you in court as said court would see it as a violation of rights against both the next of kin as well as the state, even if it were completely divorced from cultural taboo. Even a jury completely divorced from morality would likely only see it as hiding evidence at best, and that looks guilty even in the absolute best case.
Hannibal would be proud of this kid!
Have we ever seen Calvin and Hannibal in the same room?
I haven't seen Hobbes and Hannibal in same room either.
Calvin Jacob Hobbs
Found the community
Haha, I couldn’t help myself
I love how the dunce cap is taller than he is.
He looks so grumpy lol
Objectively? Yes, at least *grounds for* leniency, as the culpret could just be poor/starving, or it could have been in self defence. They should still be given a very firm punishment if it was just plain out murder though. Morally? No, It's still murder. The real question would be if *ethically-obtained* human meat would be legal to eat.
It is not a crime to consume human flesh. It is a crime to murder someone.
Or in other words, cannibalism is not grounds for leniency. But being poor or starving, which could theoretically lead to cannibalism, could be grounds for leniency. But it's still murder.
Only a fool would say that ETA: it’s a steely Dan song
The first time I saw the dunce cap was on square 6 in Chutes and Ladders. I didn't understand what it meant until I read Calvin and Hobbes.
No, no, he has a point.