Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes

6 (50%)

no

6 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: November 26, 2005, 04:21:30 pm

[Bozack]

This made me laugh.

THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"

[Beatrice]

... and God, and the Bible...

[misterqueue]

... and God, and the Bible...

Fake girl, you should be allowed to have your own imaginary baby.

[V-Adore]

This made me laugh.

THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"

Oh, man, now I'm picturing some of the surprising answers.

Q: Is there a God?
A: That'd be the butt, Bob.

[Bozack]

... and God, and the Bible...

And stuff!

Thank you, Mr.Show

[Golfhaus]

Oh, man, now I'm picturing some of the surprising answers.

Q: Is there a God?
A: That'd be the butt, Bob.

Q: Is there a God?
A: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

[aparrish]

Q: Is there a God?
A: SURPRISE! (everyone jumps out of the closet wearing party hats; confetti falls)
Q: Oh, you guys.  You shouldn't have.

[CortJstr]

THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"

No, there are several. And Xena was completely accurate. Well, up until the last season anyway.

[AlohaDawg]

ReligiousTolerance.org states that 32% (and dropping) of the world is Christian while Islam and Hinduism alone account for 32% together and Islam is growing while Hinduism is stable. Add in Judaism and a few other assorted theistic faiths like Baha'i and Sikhism and it's a fair case to make that Christianity is indeed a worldwide minority and set to continue losing statistical ground to Islam and faiths practiced in growing nations particularly in Asia.  

um, when i look at a pie chart, and one piece of pie is larger than any single other piece of the pie, i would NEVER even IMAGINE to label that largest piece of the pie a MINORITY.

you want to phrase it as "quite possibly going to be in the future someday maybe dependent on a lot of shit that noone really knows a minority maybe", fine.

---

also, shades of grey.  great.  ya, me too.

all other mitigating factors that i can conceive of point to the fact that i think the society i live in embracing a death culture is BAD.

I was looking at Christians vs the rest of the theistic world. Another point we can't address with the data is the how the data is collected - because a number of respondents in all the categories are place themselves there nominally but aren't actively practicing any religion. Self-identification is a nice start, but it's not a state of being.

[arkabee]

I was looking at Christians vs the rest of the theistic world. Another point we can't address with the data is the how the data is collected - because a number of respondents in all the categories are place themselves there nominally but aren't actively practicing any religion. Self-identification is a nice start, but it's not a state of being.

...

so, uh, how bout them bears, eh?

anyways,
let's get back to our mutual agreement that this corpse show is unethical,
you from your position of faith, me from my position of, um, non faith.

[AlohaDawg]

You must have faith in <something> or you wouldn't have a place to make your ethical stand, though. Where do you perceive the root of your values is?

[side_show]

Question for AD and Side Show:  Is there a way an exhibition like this could be done that you would be satisfied with?  Say, if all the following conditions were met:

-- Only the bodies of people who had given their express written permission were used;

--  The bodies were displayed in an neutral, utterly non-provacative manner;

--  All proceed were donated to a suitable charity;

--  Educational/informative/instructional material accompanied each display.

Would that make a difference or are you inherently opposed to this practice?

Sorry, I've been away for a while, and when it comes to this thread, I went and set a fire and walked away, so now I'm responding one post at a time.  For me, yes, if all of the above happened then I'd be okay with it, and would probably want to go again.

My problems are:  centrally, that at least some of these bodies are those of people who did not give their personal consent, and this especially bothers me if some are the bodies of marginalized people who have their rights ignored through out their lives - it just seems like such a cruel joke to continue the abuse perminantly after these people die.  My secondary problem with it is that this scientist takes on the image of being an artist - I find this deeply insulting both to the people he is presenting as art, and to myself as an artist.

[side_show]

Wait, I thought of one more question.

Would it be ok to provocatively display (for obscene profit) the body of someone who had tortured people for the SS during WWII, against their wishes and the wishes of their family?  What if he had a barbed c*ck?

Or ate babies?

Yes, a baby eating Nazi with a barbed c*ck should definilty be posed in a very dirty way and a lot of money should be charged to see the sight.  But only if said Nazi authorized it himself before he died.

I kid, I kid...

[side_show]

All of these exhibits that we have convenielty objectified into works of art or three dimensional diagrams are children, maybe parents, brothers, sisters. We are all related to each and everyone of them in some distant way. And we should understand that they deserve better than to be skinneed, peeled, posed, and gawked at.

I realize that I'm a minority voice here - and that my somewhat conservative views may not reflect the majority in all places. But humanity is slipping badly in terms of stewardship to this thing called life - whether you take Side Show Mel's point of view or my point of view it comes down to whether or not you are willing to sacrifice your own humanity on the altar of humanism.

Thanks AD - it's a little weird for a gal with such different political views that yours in most situations to be agreeing, but this is the point for me.  I don't care how these bodies were altered, there is a deep deep well of human emotion tied to these now dead, now splayed and displayed human beings.  While I'm pretty sure you'd oppose this side of things, if someone in my family came to me and said they wanted this to be done to their body, I'd have no problem with it, and probably view it as a celebartion of them that they could be dealt with in passing in exactly the way they wished.  But knowing that even the creater of this exhibit doesn't deny the shady way in which these bodies is what makes it so inhumane to me.  If you know that these bodies were not offered up willingly, then how can you walk through the doors an celebrate the exhibit as the presenters so openly invite you to do?  It's a moral crime against the familes of these people, and, if like most people (but not like me), you believe in a soul, then isn't it a moral crime against the souls of these people?

I don't think it's nessisarily a left vs right issue to argue for ethics and morality.  You can still be on either side of the abortion debate yet agree that poor women shouldn't be urged to have abortions so their embryonic cells can be used for science can't you?  Being an athiest doesn't give me carte blanche to be an uncaring person.  I think it's very important to look at our humanity.  As a secular humanist, I feel that it's very imporant for me to still look at what I feel is right, what I feel is wrong - to stand up for what is important to me as a human being.  If anything, I think that my life and the lives of the people around me are the most sacred core of life, especially since I belive the life we have is all we get.  My life shouldn't be violated by having my mentally ill mother hacked to bits skinned and displayed for profit just because I lose track of her for a year or two.

[side_show]

I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.

I think the split on the poll represents the fact that, well, asking "Yes" or "No" on this question isn't quite asking enough. I was initially hesitant to vote because there was no "Yes, But With Reservations About This Instance" option, for reasons that I have already exposited about at great length to total board apathy. I suspect there are relatively few "yes/no, and DAMN THE TORPEDOES" votes in there and more "well, it depends."

Y'know I tried three times to provide a third option of "Whatever" but everytime it wouldn't let me post it, which was really annoying.

I meant for this to be a debate over whether it is ethical or not to use bodies where the consent of institution (hospital, psychiatic ward, prison) is obtained, but not nessisarily the consent of the individual or their familes.  I kind of forgot that the way a body is handled has spiritual implications for many people, since it really doesn't for me.