Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9191450" data-attributes="member: 6801228">It is a common practice, but it is not universal by any means. If the deceased is unpresentable, for example, we will use a closed casket and a photograph instead. Because the importance is in the memories and our perception of how they should look. I don't see this as invalidating feelings at all. Your link literally leads to an article about seeing visions, dreams, ect of the deceased. Memories, thoughts. None of that changes looking at the body of the person, and knowing that that isn't them. It is that disconnect that can cause extreme anguish during funerals. Seeing the body of the person, and knowing that that body is not the person. Saying that the body is not the person does not trample on that person, the feelings of the berieved or anything else. In fact, it is a necessary disconnect and distance, otherwise you would be like the children who freak out that you are burying the deceased "alive". A corpse is not a human. It is the remains of a human. Right, but I AM talking about Necromancy? Giving examples to refute my discussion of necromancy that you don't intend to equate to necromancy would be sort of like talking about how drowning is a terrible way to die, while the discussion is on people's preferred drinks. Yes, dehumanizing living people is bad? Yes, sometimes it happens anyways because numbers are useful? Yes, it can go too far and cause problems? If none of this applies to the discussion at hand, I don't see why you even brought it up as your main point of discussion. No? Seriously, I don't get it. Accurate words don't invalidate memories. This is like saying that carving a city out of a mountain and calling it a city instead of a mountain invalidates the memory of the mountain. Or that calling a cake a cake invalidates the memory of the wheat or the chicken egg. Things change states. We can remember them pre-change and not invalidate them by being accurate about what they now are. If you move, and call your new address "your home" you are not invalidating the memories of where you used to live. Heck, by your logic presented here, Doctor is dehumanizing. Teacher is dehumanizing. Mother is dehumanizing. Because all of them change the word "person" to a different word. Someone could go from person -> student -> graduate -> Doctor after all. Or from person -> wife -> Mother. Your claim doesn't make sense to me, because it keeps assuming dehumanization without cause or reason to assume it. I think this, because the process you laid out was linear. It equated the same step as "corpse to undead" with "person to corpse". But these are not equal things, nor are they even related. It calls to mind the classic trope of the necromancer murdering people to make undead, such as Szas Tam in Honor Among Thieves. And that is very different than the local priest asking a dying old man what he wants to happen with his body after his soul leaves it. Additionally, "labor" is an incredibly broad term. It can mean many things, and whether or not we consider something labor is kind of immaterial. Again, is what a machine does "labor"? Or is it something else. I don't see what bearing that has on the idea of raising the dead, except to say that if a machine is doing labor, than it is a person, and therefor it is exploitation. See, you are making assumptions. Who said it is free labor? Perhaps the religious institution that creates the undead pays a monthly stipend to the family. Now it isn't free labor. Who says it makes wealthy people more wealthy? Maybe the undead are used to guard the town from assault by fiends or monsters like Ankhegs. Now they are performing a civic service for all people in the town, not increasing any single person's wealth, but contributing to societal stability. You cannot just assume that Necromancy's usage will be for the rich to become richer by exploiting free labor. That is not inherent in the idea. I'm not going to go digging, but I bring up consent consistently when discussing this idea of Necromancy and it being used for non-evil purposes. It is inherent in the idea, because a big part of the potential pitfall is forcing people into undeath against their will. Huh? How is donating your body to be used different than donating your body to be used? Is it because you don't think donating your body to science generates any money? I have bad news for you about transplant surgeries if that is the case. Speak with Dead? Perhaps the consent comes from the Gods and the Divine, who in their communion with the souls of the deceased only allow you to raise those who consent? There are a lot of ways to do it. I agree doing it without consent can be icky, but that is why I bring it up. Right. So this is why I was initially confused. You added in a lot of assumptions. Lack of consent, free labor, use by the wealthy to generate wealth. You didn't state any of this originally, you just claimed helping the economy = prison industrial complex. My position has always been simply "Necromancy is not inherently evil, it can be used for good." If you insist on adding evil to it, then you must acknowledge what you are adding. Giving clean water to people is not murder. Piping in clean water to drown people trapped in a glass box IS murder. You must provide your context, before making your declaration.</blockquote>

Verification