> Anyway, there are even cultures (now extinct I think) that eat their own dead as a form of mourning.
Yes, but you wouldn't call those people murderous cannibals, would you? Murderous implies that you murdered someone. Now, true, one man's liberator is another man's murderer, but someone who has not killed anyone can't be called murderous any way you stretch it, even if they are a cannibal.
So, even if you are right that most cannibals were not criminals, I think it's safe to say, as GP did, that murderous cannibals are criminals.
I believe it was the gentleman calling them “murderous criminals” that introduced this concept; obviously I would not consider a ritualistic cannibal to imply being a murderer and just don’t accept the “murderous” label.
Yes, but you wouldn't call those people murderous cannibals, would you? Murderous implies that you murdered someone. Now, true, one man's liberator is another man's murderer, but someone who has not killed anyone can't be called murderous any way you stretch it, even if they are a cannibal.
So, even if you are right that most cannibals were not criminals, I think it's safe to say, as GP did, that murderous cannibals are criminals.