I said cremation and burial are superstitious. He said memories of his family are not superstitious. Those two statements are not analogous. They are completely different.
I said we should remember the dead, take time to grieve, mourn, hold funerals and wakes before disposing of the body in a way that does not use resources, preferably turning the body into a resource. He compared that to "immediately shoving them in a meat grinder".
This coming from someone who thinks embalming should be outlawed? How droll. Tell me, how do you intend to give people time to remember the dead, to grieve, and hold funerals and wakes, before disposing of the body, if you think embalming techniques intended specifically to give people at least some time to come to terms with things before the body is "disposed of" should be against the law?
I think it can be pretty well proven that cremation and burial are not themselves superstitious practices. A grave (or a shrine with a sealed pot of cremated ashes) gives people a place to go to remember and honor their loved ones. In and of itself, it has nothing to do with superstition. It can take years - decades, even - for a person to finish grieving for a loved one, even if they aren't a human being. And in some ways, they never really stop grieving. Again, nothing to do with superstition in and of itself.
Not a strawman?
Nope. Just because you misinterpret something as a strawman doesn't mean it is one. And you are not one to talk, given how you tend to contradict yourself.
I'm not sure you understand what a strawman arguement is.
Hello, pot. Calling the kettle black again?
Which is funny, because you use them all the time.
The only thing that's "funny" is how poorly you tend to comprehend other people's arguments, especially given that you tend to contradict yourself periodically.
In response to your response to me:
I love how everyone is ignoring my actual point and instead, making my point. You love to hate me so much that you don't bother to read what I'm actually saying. This is not specifically directed at you Jamie, but you're just helping me demonstrate this amusing fact.
Let's see. How many people have posted here saying that you're right in your attitude towards burial rituals? Yet we're "ignoring your actual point" because we "hate you so much"? Get over yourself. I don't hate you at all - I don't know you well enough to justify hate. To be honest, the only things I feel about you are contempt at your callous attitudes and pity at how you think none of us are capable of being rational in your case.
However, I can honestly say that I do read what you say (I always read posts that I disagree with), and apparently remember it better than you did, as I described above. You keep contradicting yourself, as I illustrated one example of above, yet you apparently think the problem is with the people who disagree with you instead of it being with you yourself. I can't really say I'm surprised at that attitude. If there was ever an example of someone who demonstrated the truism that a person cannot learn if they're already convinced they know the answer, it's you.
I've said so many times, I know it won't change any time soon. And I know why. My point is that it should, and must, change. Eventually.
Otherwise, what's the alternative? Every square of inch of land will be cemetery. It's ridiculous.
Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't. But I somehow doubt that every square inch of land on Earth will be a cemetery. This seems like the sort of exaggeration common to people who take a trend and extrapolate it to its logical end point, no matter how absurd that end point is in practice.
I never said that using bodies as fertilizer was the only option, I was simply pointing out an alternative to burial or cremation that is logical and does not waste resources. People reject the idea because it's new.
Yes, because nobody has ever thought that bodies could be used to fertilize crops before. Even though farmers have always used dead plant and animal matter in order to fertilize their crops, before we came up with methods that let us make fertilizer that could be stored for long periods of time. Would you get real already?
I never said we shouldn't mourn, or have funerals, or remember the dead, but please feel free to continue the strawman attacks to defeat that arguement that nobody is making.
No, but you did say that we should outlaw using metal coffins, embalming, and concrete vaults as a first step to changing funeral rituals to what you want them to be. The problem is, embalming allows us to have funerals where the members of an extended family can gather together. If we outlawed embalming, that would be impossible. Far-off relatives, and even nearby relatives, wouldn't have time to arrange for a proper funeral; the body would have to be disposed of quickly in order to keep it from rotting and making other people get sick. And I don't mean sick to their stomachs.
That's obviously not as important to you as not wasting the resources from the body by cremating or burying the body, but to be blunt, I don't really care. You aren't the one who gets to decide what is and isn't important to a family that's planning a funeral. You aren't the one who gets to say that they shouldn't have a grave or a shrine where they know the person's remains are interred so that they can visit that place in order to remember their loved ones. You aren't the one who gets to dictate what kind of mourning are appropriate for them, either.
You may not be saying that people shouldn't be able to mourn, or have funerals, or remember their loved ones, but you're sure doing a great job of suggesting that only the means you approve of for doing these things should be valid. And that's what people are criticizing with these so-called "strawmen", which aren't strawmen at all.
Are you saying there are no alternatives to burial or cremation that honor the dead in a meaningful way? That seems like a slap in the face to cultures that don't bury or cremate their dead. I guess they're doing it wrong.
For someone who likes to call out strawmen, you sure aren't shy about doing it yourself. Lucifer in no way said that burial and cremation were the only options, here or anywhere else. He was saying that we shouldn't get rid of burial and cremation because of the people who find them to be useful ways to honor their traditions.
By the way, just because it's tradition doesn't mean it's right, or the only option, or should continue forever. The founding fathers had a tradition of keeping slaves.
Given that the traditions of various burial practices in no way equate to the tradition of slavery, I don't see this as being a valid point.