It's a supernatural belief, and you are looking for scientific answers?
Someone's sarcasm detector isn't working too well today, I see. I admit, it was kind of subtle, but still.
You misunderstood me. I didn't say we have 'used only metal caskets' I said we have 'only used metal caskets'. The former would mean exclusively used metal caskets as you interpreted it, the latter means we have used metal caskets for a short time.
First, when you have to start parsing your sentences that carefully, it's time you reconsider the words you choose. Second, learn some grammar. "We only use metal caskets" means the same as "we exclusively use metal caskets". It certainly does not mean "we've used metal caskets for a short time".
First, a lot of this is just a personal bias some people here have against me. They are arguing against what they want me to be saying and ignoring what I'm actually saying.
Non sequitur. The two are not related. Having a personal bias doesn't mean one uses strawmen; using strawmen doesn't mean that one has a personal bias. And neither need apply to someone who disagrees with you. You also need to learn that sarcasm is not the same as a strawman argument, as I will illustrate below.
Similarly, funerals are superstitious practices - wasteful and useless!
All people should be forgotten when they die. They're no longer relevant, after all.
Which is a poor attempt at a reductio ad absurdum, but is actually a strawman. It's Adzgari's strawman that most of the following arguments were directed.
It isn't a strawman at all. Sarcasm, by definition, is a form of irony directed at an individual
. I hope I don't have to define irony for you as well. The point is Azdgari's argument was sarcasm, in this case, exaggeration for effect. This should have been obvious, especially since he also wrote "/sarcasm". Yet, somehow you assumed that he was being serious. This is your mistake, not his, and you have nobody to blame for your misunderstanding but yourself.
Ask yourself, are those directed at my comment that burials and cremations are wasteful, or at Adzgari's strawman?
I can't speak for Lucifer, but my comment was directed at your statement that burials and cremations were superstitious practices. I was giving the example of funerals, which have long been associated with superstitious practices but are not themselves superstitious, as a comparison to your statement about burials and cremations, which have also long been associated with superstitious practices but are not themselves superstitious, to demonstrate that your statement was inaccurate. This is not an example of "personal bias" and "strawman arguments" from me, this is an example of you not comprehending sarcasm and jumping to conclusions that are not warranted by what I actually said.
And then we have Hatter's reduction ad absurdum of Adzgari's strawman.
No, we have Hatter's sarcasm on top of Azdgari's sarcasm. Pretty obvious if you aren't already assuming it's a strawman.
Azdgari: Yep.Jamiehler' strawman joins the fight.
*tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek* Dead people are dead, after all. Whatever they did during their life, if anything, ceases to matter to them at the moment of death. So why should anyone else have to respect their memories afterward? Just toss them in a hole, incinerate them, use them as fertilizer...hey, I know, let's skip all that and just convert their actual bodies into food, the way farms do with dead cow parts to feed to living ones. Even more logical, even cheaper, even more beneficial. I bet the only reason anyone could possibly object to this practice is because of the superstitious traditions ingrained in them.
Or, perhaps, the whole "superstitious traditions" argument is overblown in the first place.
Nope, this was me using sarcasm to illustrate that I thought the "superstitious traditions" argument was ridiculous (which is why I said it was tongue-in-cheek at the beginning). So far, you've consistently misinterpreted sarcasm as strawmen. This suggests to me that you are either deliberately misinterpreting other people's arguments, or you are simply missing the fact that they're supposed to be sarcastic, or you simply don't know what sarcasm is. Given the unlikelihood of the latter one, since you have used sarcasm yourself, and the unlikelihood of the middle one, since both Azdgari and I used text to indicate that we were being sarcastic and not serious, that suggests that you are deliberately misinterpreting sarcasm for strawmen, though I don't really see why you would.
I slay the strawmen.
Which seems akin to tilting against windmills in this case.
Since none of the rest of this diatribe was directed at me, I see little point in addressing it except to say that you did a masterful job of passing the buck so that you could portray yourself as aloof and statesmanlike. Maybe you should consider politics.
I very rarely use personal attacks or troll others. I explain my position, often repeatedly, and let reason prevail. When others troll me or personally attack me they get a pass.
You can also claim a cow pie
is delicious, but you won't find me eating one. Oops, forgot, you have trouble with sarcasm. So I'll just be blunt. You've consistently misinterpreted sarcasm as strawmen and assumed that disagreement meant personal bias. This is contemptible. I'm sure you pride yourself on being reasonable and logical, but if your arguments here are the best you can muster, you've got a long way to go.