Is it evil to make, or eat, balut from the eggs of sentient creatures?
>>43739780
Yes. You are eating a sapient species, even worse, you are eating what amounts to babies, and are directly taking life from the future generations. Pretty evil there mate.
> implying filthy egglayers are sentient
Frankly I find the idea of an egglayer that thinks offensive.
>>43739810
What about unfertilized eggs?
>>43739828
then that's basically just like swallowing instead of spitting
>>43739780
I'm giving this thread 30 posts until it devolves into pro-life vs pro-choice arguments.
>>43739780
If it aint human, it aint evil. Have a hearty breakfast, Anon.
>>43739828
Since they're haploid, rather than a properly functioning diploid organism, and do not perform the proper processes that define being a living being or even being sapient, then its "technically" okay, but might have negative cultural connotations. Essentially, it would be like drinking cum, its only half of what could be an organism, but not quite an actual member of a living species.
Evil? Or delicious?!
If it is considered bestiality to fuck it, then it is fine to eat the offspring and the eggs.
If it is not considered bestiality to fuck it, do not eat the eggs or offspring.
>>43739879
Define Beastiality, or at least how it functions here. Are we going for the technical definition, or the Harkness-compliant definition?
>>43739904
>Define bestiliaty
It is when you fuck non-humanoid animals or humanoids with extremely lowered mental capabilities.
>>43739873
> You must eat all the eggs
>>43739780
>Is it evil to make, or eat, balut from the eggs of sentient creatures?
This is an abortion debate isn't it.
>>43739922
What about Dragons? They aren't humanoid, but they usually have greater than human levels of intelligence, and are undeniably sapient. That's how you get Sorcerers. Or perhaps the other bizzare critters, like Naga that are basically heads on snake bodies and are often intelligent, or other similar sapient species.
>>43739922
How about werewolves?
Let's say you fucked a werewolf in their human form? Nobody would consider that bestiality.
Then you fuck a werewolf in its wolf form (classical full-wolf transformation, not that in-between bullshit). Is that bestiality? They are the same being afterall. If it is bestiality for one then it is bestiality for the other. It is both or neither in that regard.
Or maybe it is just tied to the genitals? Human enough? Not bestiality. Or maybe procreation? If you can breed with it, maybe it isn't bestiality. But that would make barren people beasts if we were to use purely breeding as a factor so that's a no go.
How about this? If it ain't your species, its bestiality. You fucking an elf? Might as well be fucking a dog or crocodile, it is the same thing. That is what makes half-elfs so terrible.
How far does that distinction go though? Should going outside your race be considered bestiality? When dealing with fantasy, the simple question of 'What is bestiality?' is surprisingly more complex than it should be.
>>43739964
Dragons are the ones committing bestiality at that point. Which makes sense given how they shun other dragons and keep to themselves.
Pretty much anti-social rejects with a lot of disposable income and a furry fetish, humans are a part of that fetish.
>>43739964
half-dragons say "hello"
>>43740014
Wow, now I'm imagining a NEET Dragon with his claws coated in cheeto dust and a collection of human Dakimakuras and dildos. Instead of a normal breath attack, it sickens people with the smell of Doritos and Mountain Dew
>>43740042
>>43740056
More?
>>43740071
Sorry that's just an inversion of the various 'princess i've come for you' template images
>>43740119
There actually are two more panels for the >>43740056 comic in which the girl knight grins and she takes off her pants off-screen.
>>43739780
How do you get the eggs, first off? Fertilized would likely be evil, but unfertilized depends on method of harvesting. Or at least, I would imagine that'd be how this works.
>>43739964
Thats xenophilia, not beastiality.
>>43740157
>>43739828
If its unfertilized, then it can't be Eggs Balut, because then it would just be boiled eggs.
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut_(egg)
>>43739810
Egg laying creatures ovulate unfertilized eggs. The eggs we eat from chickens are an example of this. Women who have not become fertilized with male sperm discard the egg at the end of their cycle. We eat chicken period eggs. These are not living things, nor would they have been living things. The cells inside may be living, but the egg it's self is not. It's not a creature. If we were to not eat something that was composed of living cells, we would starve.
This being said, cannibalism is normal in the animal kingdom and isn't evil. We perceive it as evil as sentient creatures because of a moral or social construct based off of the observations of our ancestors. It is easier to transmit disease from the ingestion of your own species, therefore it is taboo. Just like sleeping with your close relatives limits the gene-pool and has an increased chance to produce faulted offspring, therefore it is "sin".
So, that being said, if the eggs are sitting in a nest, have been fertilized, and are of a species genetically close to whatever species you are, it may be considered "evil" to consume them based off of our human culture.
>>43739780
Is the sentient creature an irredeemable enemy to your species? Then no.
>>43740188
Right then. Balut with sapient species would likely be an evil act, because then you're effectively eating some species' unborn children where they seem to be likely to hatch. Generally, people frown upon that sorta thing.
>>43740204
With what you mentioned about transmitting disease within our own species more easily, what if that applied to other sapient species as well? I mean, most of them in fantasy seem to have similar anatomical structures to some extent, so it wouldn't be all that far fetched.
>>43740204
>These are not living things, nor would they have been living things.
That's what I said in>>43739871
OP is talking about Balut, which is specifically Fertilized Eggs, so it would be pretty evil.
Also you're argument about evil is irrelevant since its implied that is the context of the definition for good and evil supplied in the OP question. Further, I suggest avoiding trying to bring up such euphoric definitions of good and evil, especially if you aren't willing to consider the existential and epistemological implications of your statements. Also, since the OP deigned to not discuss which setting in particular, we have to assume he is referring to the Alignment system, as it is the default for such discussions on this board, in which case such definitions of good and evil, inspite of it being silly and ridiculous, are mostly cosmically objective
>>43740297
Think of it like this, "If you can breed with it and produce successful offspring, than the chances that you can transmit disease with it are increased." A more compatible biology means that a virus, fungus, or bacteria has to work less to specify to the host. We received AIDS from chimps* because we aren't that far biologically. We used to interbreed with neanderthals and similar sapians. I'd guess there was plenty of disease spread between the lot of us, which may or may not be the reason those other species aren't around any more. If the species you are referring to comes from a common ancestor, then yes. Elves, orcs, dwarves, and ogres seem to be able to breed, resulting in half-species in most settings, therefore one can deduce that their genes are close enough to allow for it, meaning that they more than likely have common ancestors. Fuck, it may be why elves and dwarves (or the Picts) aren't around today.
So... If your avian bi-pedal sentient race comes from the meddling of a god, blending the anatomy of a sentient species close to humans with some form of bird or winged mammal, then chances are it is compatible with man.
>>43740056
>you will never have a NEET dragon bro to watch anime with
>>43739780
How are they obtained? Stealing is wrong. Otherwise, yeah, its fine up until a certain point in development of a fertilized egg. That point being where it has a possible shot of surviving hatching.
Only if the sentient creatures are cute.
>>43740402
That's fucking horrifying
Just sentient? Probably fine if you're human. We eat a lot of probably sentient things. Sapient on the other hand, well we've done that as well but it'd be weird if they could talk to us and we'd probably stop.
A better question is is it ok to eat animal carcasses that are being prepared as the bodies for intelligent undead children?
>>43741851
Undead cannot reproduce through any means other than murder and desecration. So, while it might be evil to eat the corpse, its the lesser of the two evils, but still evil and you should instead retrieve the body and cremate. Or take it to a mountain for a Sky Burial
>>43740402
das cute meng
>>43739780
No more evil than my Mama's world family's Human Fetus Gumbo
>>43739810
He said sentient not sapient. Birds are already sentient, that is, they have working brains.
>>43742049
World famous, even.
>>43740449
/thread
>>43742051
I assumed he was one of the millions of laymen who use "sentient" when they mean "sapient" because they don't understand the difference. You'd be surprised how often this happens.
>>43739994
What suggests elves aren't the same species as humans?
>>43742530
The fact that they are usually specifically not humans, were created via different means, and tend to have radically different lifespans and usually differing physiology.
>>43742579
Human races have different creation myths. Dog breeds have radically different physiologies, far more so than men and elves. Life expectancy can vary for all kinds of reasons.
They can all fuck and make fertile babies though. That makes them related subspecies, at least by any understanding of species we have irl. Perhaps the varying famtasy races are actually...races.
>>43742694
>elves, dwarves, orcs, humans, etc are all just massively inbred a la dog breeds
That would explain why these races usually have one cohesive personality per race.
It's evil to eat balut in the first place
>>43743729
Wonder how you feel about veal
>>43740297
>Balut with sapient species would likely be an evil act, because then you're effectively eating some species' unborn children where they seem to be likely to hatch.
Are we deciding that abortions are evil aligned now? Because that's all this is. An edible abortion.
>>43744630
It's not about it being an abortion, it's like taking a pregnant woman and forcibly giving her an abortion.
>>43744705
>it's like taking a pregnant woman and forcibly giving her an abortion.
Only if she didn't consent. I don't see why some reckless dragon harlot wouldn't give her eggs away as balut so she could avoid responsibility.
>>43744746
Is eating aborted fetuses not currently illegal in most civilized countries?
>>43745071
>Is eating aborted fetuses not currently illegal in most civilized countries?
No. We call it balut in the Philippines. It's duck fetuses. Aborted duck fetuses.
>>43745244
I meant from humans.
>>43740449
This is the truth.
By and large we as a species don't give a fuck. Unless the sentient/sapient creature has entered into a symbiotic relationship with us like dogs did we'll eat anything without any real fucks given, and even then look at all the asians that love to eat them some dog.
Properly sapient animals like dolphins, whales, crows, octopi(podes?uses?), elephants, etc. are all still on the menu. Those that are protected are more for the fact that we've EATEN TOO MANY and would like it if they repopulated to sustainable eating numbers or so they can hold down their spot in ecology where it matters to us or we just decided we liked how they look.
If its edible we'll probably eat them and not give a fuck. Only species that actively can communicate with us with some directed higher concepts like, "Please stop eating our babies you assholes," would be spared our belly because it is extremely easy to ignore protests you can't and will never understand.
>>43745435
The main question though wasn't if people would do it or not, there have been many cultures that were fine with cannibalism. The question was if it's evil or not.
>>43745514
Is it evil to eat a crow? Is it evil to eat a whale?
I've had narwhal before and let me tell you it's delicious.
>>43739871
>>43739849
it'd kind of be more like eating a period
mmmm
>>43743729
It's delicious is what it is.
>>43743729
Evil? Or just offends your idea of what food should look/smell/taste like and so you condemn it out of hand by appealing to a higher power or blanket morality that does not exist?
>>43745244
but the sentience/sapience of the species is key, here.
and we're not talking about what's morally good or evil in truth, we're talking about what's morally good or evil in a fictional setting. in a specifically medieval setting, it's reasonable to assume that eating fertilized eggs of a sentient/sapient species would be considered an evil act, since medieval morals considered aborting pregnancies to be an evil act. but since it's, you know, imaginary, you're pretty free to run your own setting however you want.
though I think it'd be interesting to have different good-aligned gods condemn different acts or practices as evil, causing friction between otherwise similarly aligned religions.
>not killing Evil Dragons and Harpyies for Glory AND Omelette.
