Author Topic: Burn or Bury?  (Read 7620 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #232 on: March 03, 2012, 10:00:23 AM »
From what I've seen, your modus operani is to be pugnacious and domineering by default.  Which makes me wonder - again - what is more important to you?  If moderating your tone and manner would make your ideas more likely to be accepted, would you - could you - do it?  Or is the argument and belittling of others and showing off your intellect more important to you?
 
The medium is the message, and all that, joe.  How much do you honestly want to see a change come to pass, and how much do you just enjoy an online barney?

I very rarely use personal attacks or troll others. I explain my position, often repeatedly, and let reason prevail.

I like you Lucifer, despite your flawed sense of reason, I think you have potential. After all, you're atheist. So I'm going to try to clarify this for you in very simple terms, so that even you might understand it.

I know my ideas are far too progressive for many people to accept right away.....

Seriously Joe - can you honestly not see how you can appear arrogant and put peoples' backs up, no matter HOW good you actual ideas may be?

I think you may well be right.  I think a fair amount of opposition to you comes from personal bias.  But why do you think that bias originated?  And continues?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #233 on: March 03, 2012, 10:03:13 AM »
I think you may well be right.  I think a fair amount of opposition to you comes from personal bias.

I don't think it is. I think most people here are "grown up" enough to be able to judge someone's ideas on their own merit.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #234 on: March 03, 2012, 11:07:19 AM »
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.

Quote from: joebbowers
Quote from: Adzgari
Similarly, funerals are superstitious practices - wasteful and useless!
All people should be forgotten when they die.  They're no longer relevant, after all.
/sarcasm

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[1].  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.

Quote from: joebbowers
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.

Quote from: joebbowers
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.

Quote from: joebbowers
Azdgari:  Yep.

*tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek*[2]  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.
 2. We need a tag for that.
Jamiehler' strawman joins the fight.
 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm?show=0&t=1330788606
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.

Quote from: joebbowers
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.

Quote from: joebbowers
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[3] 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.
 3. A colloquial term for cow dung.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #235 on: March 03, 2012, 11:10:32 AM »
If anyone is interested, do a google search for "cemeteries filling up" or "cemeteries full". There is a lot of very interesting stuff in these articles about how long bodies take to decompose, what we do when a cemetery fills up, how long bodies stay buried, etc. There are too many great articles for me to link them, but after reading a few dozen, the general concensus is that burials are unsustainable and on the way out, cremation is becoming the norm, sometimes enforced by law, and that green alternatives are rising exponentially in popularity.

I also found that a full cemetery without income from selling new plots can ask the city for tax revenue to pay for it's upkeep. I'm glad I don't pay taxes.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #236 on: March 03, 2012, 11:15:40 AM »
I think you may well be right.  I think a fair amount of opposition to you comes from personal bias.

I don't think it is. I think most people here are "grown up" enough to be able to judge someone's ideas on their own merit.
I agree.  I frankly don't care enough about him as a person to have a personal bias against him; when he posts in a different thread about something, I take that post on its own merits.  What I care about is his callous attitude and the way his idea of being reasonable and logical sabotages the whole idea of being reasonable and logical.  It's akin to if someone were espousing arguments that seemed reasonable and logical, but was doing so with a smug grin on their face and a mocking lilt to their voice.  Sure, the arguments themselves might be reasonable and logical, but the attitude is anything but, and one's attitude matters.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #237 on: March 03, 2012, 11:18:02 AM »
If anyone is interested, do a google search for "cemeteries filling up" or "cemeteries full". There is a lot of very interesting stuff in these articles about how long bodies take to decompose, what we do when a cemetery fills up, how long bodies stay buried, etc. There are too many great articles for me to link them, but after reading a few dozen, the general concensus is that burials are unsustainable and on the way out, cremation is becoming the norm, sometimes enforced by law, and that green alternatives are rising exponentially in popularity.

I also found that a full cemetery without income from selling new plots can ask the city for tax revenue to pay for it's upkeep. I'm glad I don't pay taxes.
If you had posted something like this as your first post in this thread, I would have agreed with you.  The ideas aren't themselves bad, it's the way they're put across.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #238 on: March 03, 2012, 11:24:19 AM »
jaimehlers, are you saying I should just ignore sarcasm? It's being used here to demonstrate what they believe is an exaggerated version of my position, but it's actually not remotely similar to my position. Should I let that slide just because they phrase it sarcastically? What is your point?
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #239 on: March 03, 2012, 11:49:39 AM »
I agree.  I frankly don't care enough about him as a person to have a personal bias against him; when he posts in a different thread about something, I take that post on its own merits.  What I care about is his callous attitude and the way his idea of being reasonable and logical sabotages the whole idea of being reasonable and logical.  It's akin to if someone were espousing arguments that seemed reasonable and logical, but was doing so with a smug grin on their face and a mocking lilt to their voice.  Sure, the arguments themselves might be reasonable and logical, but the attitude is anything but, and one's attitude matters.

This seems contradictory. For all purposes and effects, you're judging joebbowers's ideas on his attitude (who he is), rather than judging them independently. Or maybe you're not. However, you've been disagreeing with him in every post in this thread, so I'm guessing that I'm right.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #240 on: March 03, 2012, 11:54:10 AM »
jaimehlers, are you saying I should just ignore sarcasm? It's being used here to demonstrate what they believe is an exaggerated version of my position, but it's actually not remotely similar to my position. Should I let that slide just because they phrase it sarcastically? What is your point?
For someone who presumably prides himself on being reasonable and logical, you sure aren't doing a very good job at it.  You keep making assumptions that are not warranted, and as a result, you sabotage your attempts at reason and logic.  Furthermore, you annoy the heck out of people who disagree with you when you do so, especially when you make accusations based on those unwarranted assumptions.

Just to give one example, you said that burials and cremations were superstitious practices, wasteful and useless.  Azdgari sarcastically responded that funerals were also superstitious practices, wasteful and useless.  You assumed that there was no relation between the two because you were not talking about funerals, but funerals have always been closely associated with burials (and similar things, such as cremations).  Because of your assumption, you missed this simple fact, and thus you proceeded to call it a strawman because you assumed it had no relation to what you were talking about.  Except that it did, if you understood the long-term association between funerals and body disposals, and therefore it was not a strawman.

Do you understand now?  You misunderstood, plain and simple, and you have been compounding that misunderstanding by refusing to consider the possibility that you might have gotten it wrong to begin with.  Every time you've commented on it, it's been about how other people were using strawmen against you, instead of allowing for the possibility that you didn't see the connection and thus misunderstood.  And as such, you've compounded that initial error rather dramatically.  I realize admitting that you were wrong about something is aggravating as all gets out; I dislike having to do it myself.  But in order to be a rational and logical individual, you have to be willing to reconsider a conclusion you already made, and admit if it's wrong.  Not simply hold fast to it because you already made it and aren't willing to revisit it.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #241 on: March 03, 2012, 12:05:10 PM »
This seems contradictory. For all purposes and effects, you're judging joebbowers's ideas on his attitude (who he is), rather than judging them independently. Or maybe you're not. However, you've been disagreeing with him in every post in this thread, so I'm guessing that I'm right.
The point is that I'm not judging his ideas.  I'm criticizing his attitude.  You're right that if I judged his ideas based on the way he acted, that would be a kind of personal bias, but I haven't been judging his ideas.  If you were to go back and read the posts I've made in this thread, you would find that they've all been focused on the way he's been acting.  I've said several times that I have no problems with him trying to convince people that he's right, although I have expressed reservations about him being able to convince people because of his attitude.  And I haven't really expressed an opinion on the ideas themselves, aside from saying that I don't agree with trying to force people to abide by his ideas, which is not the same thing at all.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #242 on: March 03, 2012, 12:16:52 PM »
The point is that I'm not judging his ideas.  I'm criticizing his attitude.
<snip>
And I haven't really expressed an opinion on the ideas themselves, aside from saying that I don't agree with trying to force people to abide by his ideas, which is not the same thing at all.

My apologies.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #243 on: March 03, 2012, 12:37:49 PM »
So which is it, I should respond to his sarcasm or I shouldn't?

Also, saying that burials are wasteful is not the same nor is it remotely similar to saying that funerals are wasteful, despite the two being often being associated with each other. Not every funeral is followed by a burial, and not everyone who is buried is given a funeral. They are seperate events with seperate purposes. Even if every single funeral was followed by a burial, it would still be possible to object to the burial portion of the process without rejecting the whole.

Saying that opposing wasteful burials is equal to opposing funerals and the grieving process is false. It is a strawman.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #244 on: March 03, 2012, 12:52:27 PM »
Saying that opposing wasteful burials is equal to opposing funerals and the grieving process is false. It is a strawman.

Considering that, as I have explained, the funeral procedure is not simply gathering around the deceased's body and talking about it, but also the burial itself, you are opposing (certain types of) funerals and (certain types of) grieving processes, then it's not a strawman, but an accurate depiction of a flawed position.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #245 on: March 03, 2012, 01:02:37 PM »
If I said I liked a film, but not a certain actor in it, or I liked a food, but not a certain ingredient in it, would you understand that? Or would that confound you as illogical? Is that a flawed position?

Now in this case it would be more like saying I like a food, but not a certain ingredient sometimes used in certain varieties of that dish. If someone says they do not like anchovies do you assume they must dislike all pizzas?

"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #246 on: March 03, 2012, 01:04:02 PM »
If someone says they do not like anchovies do you assume they must dislike all pizzas?

If all pizzas included anchovies, yes.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #247 on: March 03, 2012, 01:06:47 PM »
If someone says they do not like anchovies do you assume they must dislike all pizzas?

If all pizzas included anchovies, yes.

Do all pizzas include anchovies? Are you stating that all funerals include burials?

(And even if all pizzas included anchovies, one could just pick them off, it would not mean they didn't like pizza.)
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 01:10:19 PM by joebbowers »
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #248 on: March 03, 2012, 01:10:17 PM »
Do all funerals include burials?

They include some manner of body disposal, all of which are wasteful. The least wasteful method would be dumping them in the nearest uninhabited location (preferably one with lots of microorganisms that would feed on the body) and moving on with our lives.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #249 on: March 03, 2012, 01:11:01 PM »
So which is it, I should respond to his sarcasm or I shouldn't?
You need to make sure you're understanding the sarcasm correctly first.

Quote from: joebbowers
Also, saying that burials are wasteful is not the same nor is it remotely similar to saying that funerals are wasteful, despite the two being often being associated with each other.
They aren't identical, no, but due to that association that you just mentioned, trying to say that the one is not remotely similar to the other is wrong.  In fact, in a lot of cases, the burial is part of the funeral ritual.

Quote from: joebbowers
Not every funeral is followed by a burial, and not everyone who is buried is given a funeral.
True, but in the funerals that are followed by burials, the burial is the final part of the funeral service.

Quote from: joebbowers
They are seperate events with seperate purposes. Even if every single funeral was followed by a burial, it would still be possible to object to the burial portion of the process without rejecting the whole.
If you just object to burials and don't bother to mention that you consider funerals and burials to be separate, how is anyone supposed to realize that's what you mean?  Especially as burials are very often the final part of the funeral service?

Quote from: joebbowers
Saying that opposing wasteful burials is equal to opposing funerals and the grieving process is false. It is a strawman.
If you were to say that you approved of funerals, but you thought the specific method of burial used was wasteful, and someone tried to equate the two, it would certainly be a strawman.  But you didn't say that.  You just said burials were superstitious and wasteful, and assumed that people would understand what you meant.  You neglected to take into account that a lot of people consider the burial to be part of the funeral tradition, and reacted as such.

I hope that clears things up for you.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #250 on: March 03, 2012, 01:13:48 PM »
Do all funerals include burials?

They include some manner of body disposal, all of which are wasteful. The least wasteful method would be dumping them in the nearest uninhabited location (preferably one with lots of microorganisms that would feed on the body) and moving on with our lives.

Was I arguing against all manners of body disposal?

Also, to say they are all wasteful is a blatant oversimplication, as burials are several orders of magnitude more wasteful than many alternatives.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #251 on: March 03, 2012, 01:17:19 PM »
Also, to say they are all wasteful is a blatant oversimplication, as burials are several orders of magnitude more wasteful than many alternatives.

So are you saying that they're not all wasteful? Is there a method that won't spend unnecessary resources on transforming the body into something else?
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #252 on: March 03, 2012, 01:19:07 PM »
You just said burials were superstitious and wasteful, and assumed that people would understand what you meant.  You neglected to take into account that a lot of people consider the burial to be part of the funeral tradition, and reacted as such.

I've said several times, since page 1 of this thread, that I don't oppose funerals. I don't see how you've failed to notice that so I must assume that you've chosen to ignore it so you can continue to oppose your strawman.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #253 on: March 03, 2012, 01:41:11 PM »
Also, to say they are all wasteful is a blatant oversimplication, as burials are several orders of magnitude more wasteful than many alternatives.

So are you saying that they're not all wasteful? Is there a method that won't spend unnecessary resources on transforming the body into something else?

A large vat of acid would probably do the trick.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #254 on: March 03, 2012, 01:54:53 PM »
I've said several times, since page 1 of this thread, that I don't oppose funerals. I don't see how you've failed to notice that so I must assume that you've chosen to ignore it so you can continue to oppose your strawman.
First off, you didn't even post until page 2.  Second, your first statement about funerals came after the so-called "strawmen".  In other words, you didn't clarify what you meant until afterward.  Azdgari's sarcasm (that you called a strawman) was reply #38, and my sarcasm (that you called a strawman) was reply #46.  Your first statement that you didn't mind funerals was reply #47.  You do notice the chronological order there, I hope?  As in, both of the so-called "strawmen" that you initially criticized came before you attempted to clarify the situation.  Furthermore, your statement rang false, because you immediately followed it with an attempt to fix the blame on other people instead of admitting that you might not have been clear enough from the start.

Not to mention that you flippantly said, "By all means, have a funeral, say goodbye.  Then let the city body disposal service take it away and make compost out of it."  Thus showing that you still didn't understand that burial is often part of the funeral.  Not always, no, but certainly often enough that you can't discount it.  Yet you did discount it, effectively blew off any consideration except for making the least wasteful use out of the body.  In other words, you didn't do a very good job clarifying what you meant.

The point here is that you made some mistakes, and you have to be willing to admit to them.  As long as you keep trying to blame other people for "strawmen", which they weren't using, you're going to force us to keep rebutting you on that subject, because it looks an awful lot like you're trying to sidestep them by blaming us for "strawmen".  I'm quite sure that I am unwilling to tolerate being accused of using a strawman when I wasn't using one, and I suspect I'm not alone.

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #255 on: March 03, 2012, 01:58:39 PM »
A large vat of acid would probably do the trick.

Do large amounts of acid just pop up out of nowhere? Or do we have to make it ourselves? In addition, you'd be losing any and all useable resources the body might have. My way[1] conserves the maximum amount of resources and assures that the body will be recycled by other organisms.
 1. By which I mean the way that I suggested as a semi-tongue-in-cheek suggestion, rather than a way I actively endorse.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline Frank

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2363
  • Darwins +38/-20
  • Gender: Male
  • You're doin' my head in!!
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #256 on: March 03, 2012, 07:35:45 PM »
A large vat of acid would probably do the trick.

Do large amounts of acid just pop up out of nowhere? Or do we have to make it ourselves? In addition, you'd be losing any and all useable resources the body might have. My way[1] conserves the maximum amount of resources and assures that the body will be recycled by other organisms.
 1. By which I mean the way that I suggested as a semi-tongue-in-cheek suggestion, rather than a way I actively endorse.

Recycling? Was that what the nazis were doing in the concentration camp when they saved all that hair and gold teeth? What do you think we are? All I want to do is put land used to bury people put to a more productive use. That's why I advocate cremation, I'm not the least bit interested in "recycling" dead bodies.
"Atheism is not a mission to convert the world. It only seems that way because when other religions fall away, atheism is what is left behind".

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #257 on: March 03, 2012, 08:40:06 PM »
Recycling? Was that what the nazis were doing in the concentration camp when they saved all that hair and gold teeth? What do you think we are? All I want to do is put land used to bury people put to a more productive use. That's why I advocate cremation, I'm not the least bit interested in "recycling" dead bodies.

Wow. I even added a footnote clearly explaining that I suggested that method as a semi-tongue-in-cheek response, rather than a method I endorse. Yet you pull out the old "The Nazis did it" card.

You're interested in conserving resources, correct? My method[1] conserves the most resources and lets nature do its thing, as it does with every other dead body.
 1. Once again, one I suggested as a semi-tongue-in-cheek response, rather than a method I endorse.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline joebbowers

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1074
  • Darwins +91/-47
  • Gender: Male
    • My Photography
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #258 on: March 03, 2012, 09:57:36 PM »
Jamie, burial and funerals are two different things. It's really not my fault that you don't understand that, it's yours. You wanted me to be saying something I wasn't so you could argue against it.
"Do you see a problem with insisting that the normal ways in which you determine fact from fiction is something you have to turn off in order to maintain the belief in God?" - JeffPT

Online One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #259 on: March 03, 2012, 10:04:42 PM »
You wanted me to be saying something I wasn't so you could argue against it.

joebbowers, I wish to point out that the last time you said something similar to this, it turned out that the "strawmen" were accurate. You see why some of us might have a bit of trouble believing you this time.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 10:07:16 PM by Lucifer »
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4935
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Burn or Bury?
« Reply #260 on: March 03, 2012, 10:14:04 PM »
Jamie, burial and funerals are two different things. It's really not my fault that you don't understand that, it's yours. You wanted me to be saying something I wasn't so you could argue against it.
I'm sure they are two different things to you, subjectively.  To other people, subjectively, they are very closely related to each other.  The fact that your opinion on this is different than theirs does not invalidate their opinion (and vice-versa, naturally).  And yes, it is your opinion that they have nothing to do with each other.  You can't prove it definitively true or false without relying on pure technicalities which do not matter to the discussion and thus are irrelevant to what various people actually think.

As for your accusation, when you are me, you can tell me what I wanted.  In other words, this is your own self-projection talking, and has nothing to do with me.

EDIT--Actually, your accusation is also a strawman.  You are creating a false position for what I "wanted" to do and then arguing against that position, instead of determining the actual reasons behind my argument.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 10:18:37 PM by jaimehlers »