Hypothetical conversations

Interrogation Tuesday Results:

I asked you, "Would you consider it second-hand cannibalism to eat a bear that had eaten a human?" Here's a chart that google made to summarize the answers, but it's kind of cut-off:

And in list form:

Yes			9%
Yes, but I would eat it anyway			21%
No			21%
Depends on timing-- has the human been digested already? Have the nutrients been used up?			26%
Other			24%

I feel like the "other" responses deserve special mention. They are truly a testament to the twisted readership of CrusteaceanSingles.com.

"Depends on who the bear ate-- did the human deserve it? Was there anything nutritious about the human?"
"I would find that un-bear-able"
"If I could kill a bear, I'd consider myself awesome."
"No, I would consider it second-hand cannibalism to eat the doo-doo (for lack of a more appropriate term) of a bear that had eaten a human"
"Only if the human is still being digested, and I consume the parts of the bear which are currently housing the human parts, like the colon. Straight-up flesh of the bear, not an issue."
"What do you think koala tastes like?"
"what if it was a bear that had eaten a human because the human had eaten his secret lover (also a bear)? It's like a never ending chain of cannibalism if you think about it..."
"Yes, but I don't think I'd ever eat a bear anyway"

In conclusion, I'm kind of shocked by how many people think it would be secondhand cannibalism, but are open to being secondhand cannibals (21% of respondents). Kind of seems like a slippery slope.