Hmmm…. Perhaps? The last caveats read very ambiguously- all clauses are linked by “and” not “or” or “and/or,” that can imply that ALL conditions must be met; so one could read that last section to say eating someone capable of human speech is ok as long as they aren’t also terrifyingly psychic etc.
if we take the interpretation of “and” joining individual clauses, eating a human who can’t speak MAY be on the table by these rules, a key question would be consent. That is to say- if you eat them without consent, you are taking their flesh or taking their life. We can possibly side step those if another person were to have killed and prepared them to eat, as ignoring the legality of matters relating to corpses or eating humans- the list doesn’t say it is not ok to eat things that aren’t legal. The only matter of legality that concerns us is ownership-
Laws vary- but corpses are generally a type of property or quasi property in law- so if you received an already butchered corpse from someone who possessed some claim which could constitute “ownership” you can say you’ve met the criteria for not taking what isn’t yours to take set forth in these rules. If the law is such where you are that the corpse is only entrusted to someone, then likely that person can only legally do with the corpse as the former occupant desired- so unless they had consented to being eaten prior to death… that is a fail.
Of course- there is a gray area by which once the corpse is put to “rest” in the method specified by the deceased, any responsibility or claim lies with whoever or wherever the body is left. You can’t really sue a cemetery because grandma was eaten by bacteria or worms right? So in that sense there isn’t a legal ownership or transfer of responsibility to a interment site in most cases.
So legally- it’s pretty ambiguous and varied as far as wether and under what circumstances you can say you’ve met the criteria of these rules in eating a “mute” post mortem. You’d have to consult a lawyer and have them arbitrate with whoever is responsible for these rules or their interpretation.
If they are alive- your only way to eat them while meeting these rules unless ALL rules must apply as previously stated, would be to gain informed consent. The first hurdle is obviously communication- they and you must have a way to communicate clearly on the subject. The second hurdle is the “informed” part. That is to say- it can be argued that any person who would allow you to eat them alive is not in sound mind.
Again- who arbitrates the rules and could make a ruling on the matter isn’t in the post nor known to me.
Given the source and the context- it is likely or at least implied that YOU are to be the arbitrator of these rules. If that is the case, all that is required is that YOU believe in all honesty that you’ve followed the rules I suppose. Personally, I think that if we interpret each clause as separate and chock up all the “ands” to poor choice of word or desire to use fewer words- the intent of these rules likely prohibits the eating of any humans. If we take the wording to mean that ALL these conditions must be met- then you can eat almost anything you want as a simple test of wether you can eat it would be wether it is terrifyingly psychic. If it doesn’t meet that criteria- then the others done matter as it is an “and” statement not an “or” statement.
There are caveats there too though. Firstly- “psychic” isn’t really defined and not necessarily something we can confirm easily. It seems in knowing this (and also likely as a reference meant as humor to the pizza mentioned above) they specify TERRIFYINGLY psychic. It doesn’t say to whom- so we can assume to YOU, therefore if you aren’t terrified by its psychic power- you can eat it.
Lastly, certain things are Ill defined in addition to that. Notably “capable of human speech.” This clause was most likely added to 1. Expressly exclude eating humans or “intelligent aliens” and 2. To make clear the author isn’t promoting not eating meat. I suspect the author may have written this clause with a bit of ableism or thoughtlessness in that many people are incapable of speech in its definition as articulated sounds. They either couldn’t think of a proper wording for their intent or it didn’t fit cleanly or read easily in the format. Overall there seems to be a lot of this in the document and it is likely the writer isn’t accustomed to writing legal documents like contracts, bills, or laws; procedural documents, etc. that line creates a problem as you noticed- but it is a FAR bigger problem than such a pocket case.
Firstly- what is “capable?” By definition capable can mean “at this moment” or it can be ambiguous and mean at some time in the future. It also doesn’t mean one DOES a thing, only one could theoretically succeed at such a thing if they tried. So.. is a baby “capable” of human speech? In theory it is- even if it is born without vocal chords it could learn to articulate certain sounds to communicate- in theory. So does the thing need to be capable at that second and on command, or merely theoretically capable? Would a parrot be considered capable of human speech? It becomes more difficult when we consider that languages can be created. That’s how we got languages. So even grunts or whistles can be a form of speech if there are specific ones for specific ideas. It’s a critical question because in essence we must ask- must YOU be able to understand the speech for it to count as “human speech?”
To the listener who doesn’t understand, English is no different than a series of grunts for example. It means nothing to the listener, but a skilled listener could determine it is a language and given time understand it. So then- must you bring an expert in linguistics and pattern recognition with you before eating anything to determine if it is seemingly capable of producing “human language,” and must you bring neurologists and specialists to verify it has no capability to form what could be called human language as well? Of course we could counter that by arguing that if it is theoretically a language it is “human speech” and if it is a human it is theoretically capable of human speech even if we don’t observe it to be.
The “human speech” clause is extremely problematic without any definitions. If we take the broadly accepted definition, human speech merely requires one have human specific anatomy for speech- meaning that most animals, even those that can use human language, wouldn’t count, and unless a human lacked the anatomy for speech, they would be capable of human speech in theory. That would also mean that if a human LACKED the anatomy for speech, such as their vocal chords had been removed for some reason or damaged beyond anatomical reference.. then you could theoretically count that as being incapable of human speech.
In the end it is lots of questions and no one with authority to answer. It seems that you would have to decide for yourself upon preponderance of the evidence and whatever burden of proof you found acceptable, wether you were in compliance with these rules; and others likely would make their own external judgments based on their interpretations.
Of course it’s kinda a joke, which you know. And you were making a cheeky joke, which I know. And this is basically a really long joke more or less- which I’m guessing most people might not know, so I figured I’d say it. Although it does pose some interesting thoughts and I thank you @bethorien for giving me something to think on as a fun end to my Friday.
if we take the interpretation of “and” joining individual clauses, eating a human who can’t speak MAY be on the table by these rules, a key question would be consent. That is to say- if you eat them without consent, you are taking their flesh or taking their life. We can possibly side step those if another person were to have killed and prepared them to eat, as ignoring the legality of matters relating to corpses or eating humans- the list doesn’t say it is not ok to eat things that aren’t legal. The only matter of legality that concerns us is ownership-
Of course- there is a gray area by which once the corpse is put to “rest” in the method specified by the deceased, any responsibility or claim lies with whoever or wherever the body is left. You can’t really sue a cemetery because grandma was eaten by bacteria or worms right? So in that sense there isn’t a legal ownership or transfer of responsibility to a interment site in most cases.
If they are alive- your only way to eat them while meeting these rules unless ALL rules must apply as previously stated, would be to gain informed consent. The first hurdle is obviously communication- they and you must have a way to communicate clearly on the subject. The second hurdle is the “informed” part. That is to say- it can be argued that any person who would allow you to eat them alive is not in sound mind.
Again- who arbitrates the rules and could make a ruling on the matter isn’t in the post nor known to me.
Of course it’s kinda a joke, which you know. And you were making a cheeky joke, which I know. And this is basically a really long joke more or less- which I’m guessing most people might not know, so I figured I’d say it. Although it does pose some interesting thoughts and I thank you @bethorien for giving me something to think on as a fun end to my Friday.