"Being Resepctful" to the Dead

[chilon]

A thread was recently closed on the principle that it was "in bad taste" to a dead person.

This perspective honestly confuses me.

If someone was a horrible person in life, why should they get more respect for dying?

I doubt even people that claim this believe that principle because if that principle was applied equally to all threads, many, many more threads would be closed, perhaps even a huge chunk of the history sub-forum. If "being disrespectful to the dead" was such a bad thing, then everyone that ever condemns Hitler is being "disrespectful" yes?

If Charles Manson dies, are people not allowed to remember the evil acts he committed because he suddenly died?
Why should someone's death change the way their actions and words are discussed?

If someone can explain this reasoning to me I would appreciate it.


.........
forgive typo in title

[Gromovnik]

Dude, you don't want them coming back...

[chilon]

Hmm. Hah, okay, that about does it I suppose.

[InsaneHanz]

Maybe people are paranoid about spirits? I think it's a religious thing really. I'm sure atheists don't care about being respectful to the dead unless you're making up lies about the deceased.

[Keravnos]

It is the memory of those dead that must remain unblemished, untarnished.
If lies were associated with their manner of death, those lies must be destroyed.

[basics]

" If someone can explain this reasoning to me I would appreciate it."

chilon,

Obviously it has to do with the fact that the dead are someone's son, daughter, nephew, niece, father, mother even grandparent and whatever they have done blood love remains. If you have ever visited a cemetery perhaps you might have noticed that all were loving, somethings, never the opposite.

[Daeger]

People deserve in death what they deserve in life. If an person dies, respect them like you respected them in life. If you didn't respect them, don't respect them after their death either.

[Tigrul]

Respecting the dead as a general rule is just a bunch of #$%^#$^ to me. After I'm dead I want my body to go to research, and they can cut it however they want and do whatever their research requires, I obviously won't give a @%$% anymore.

As for respecting other dead people... as others have already said, I'll respect the image of dead people according to how I would have respected them when they were alive.

[Daeger]

Respecting the dead as a general rule is just a bunch of #$%^#$^ to me. After I'm dead I want my body to go to research, and they can cut it however they want and do whatever their research requires, I obviously won't give a @%$% anymore.

As for respecting other dead people... as others have already said, I'll respect the image of dead people according to how I would have respected them when they were alive.

I think in the same way. Now that I live, I want my body to be buried and left alone, when I'm dead, I don't give a crap if it's not buried and left alone, because I have ceased to exist and that's the way I like it. Of course this all would be ruined if god was a douche bag and granted me an afterlife. My precious inexistance in exchange for eternal life. Not my thing.

[Richard]

Something I've often thought about actually; I think it stems from not wanting to upset their living relatives/friends. People still have an emotional attachment to their dead loved ones, conferring their memory of the deceased with sentimental value, and we empathise with them.

[hellheaven1987]

Of course this all would be ruined if god was a douche bag and granted me an afterlife. My precious inexistance in exchange for eternal life. Not my thing.

Don't worry, if there is an afterlife body remain is not required.

[Daeger]

Don't worry, if there is an afterlife body remain is not required.

I was talking about my inexistance after death. If there was a douche bag god, it would mean I wouldn't cease to exist, but continue my existance in the afterlife and that would suck ass a lot.

[uos_spo6]

I guess the concept of respecting the dead goes towards the loved ones of the deceased who are still around, so that they don't have to be put through the pain of seeing their loved ones name dragged through the mud when they are no longer alive.

Granted, I agree that an individual deserves no more respect in death than in life. If I didn't like you or give an ish when you were alive and talked crap about you, I'm certainly not going to stop just because you are dead.

Karma might play a role as well I suppose.

When it comes to universally despised individuals like Hitler, this of course becomes an exception. Outside of "special interest groups", I don't think any one is going to raise much of a fuss about Hitler being defamed in death. I also don't know of any extended members of Hitlers family running around pleading for the global community to take it easy on his "legacy".

[Player989random]

So we can't make fun of Hitler, Reagan, Stalin, Caligula, or Micheal Jackson cause they are dead?

I never respected any of them.

[Claudius Gothicus]

So we can't make fun of Hitler, Reagan, Stalin, Caligula, or Micheal Jackson cause they are dead?

I never respected any of them.

In comedy there should be no boundaries, but yeah you better have some good arguments or you'd get owned pretty bad.

[Habelo]

Does this have anything to do with micheal jacksson?

[Copperknickers II]

A thread was recently closed on the principle that it was "in bad taste" to a dead person.

This perspective honestly confuses me.

If someone was a horrible person in life, why should they get more respect for dying?

I doubt even people that claim this believe that principle because if that principle was applied equally to all threads, many, many more threads would be closed, perhaps even a huge chunk of the history sub-forum. If "being disrespectful to the dead" was such a bad thing, then everyone that ever condemns Hitler is being "disrespectful" yes?

If Charles Manson dies, are people not allowed to remember the evil acts he committed because he suddenly died?
Why should someone's death change the way their actions and words are discussed?

If someone can explain this reasoning to me I would appreciate it.


.........
forgive typo in title

You can change the title yourself if it bothers you, you know.


As for respect to the dead, it stems from way way way way back when we were Animists who believed our ancestors would haunt us if we did not honour them. Even so, I personally believe that if you are going to disrespect someone you should do it to their face when they are alive.

[Torment]

A deceased friend of mine had a thing for doing really dirty, nasty in the bedroom. You know, two girls, one cup kinda stuff. So one night, I sneaked into the cemetary and then pissed on his grave and deficated on his tombstone. Because I respect him, even in death.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The idea that just because someone has died you can't say nasty things about them is absurd. If they were worth criticising or ridiculing when they were alive, that doesn't suddenly change just because they've popped their clogs. What is particularly sickening is the vile way the media can switch overnight from attacking some celebrity to elevating them to sainthood once they die. One week Princess Diana was being attacked (rightly) for taking three "holidays" in four months, living the high life and for being a bimbo. The next she was second only to the Virgin Mary in holiness, wisdom and compassion. What changed? She died. One week Michael Jackson was the bizarre, twisted freakshow he's been for decades now (leaving aside the strong likelihood he was also a child-raping pervert). The next my TV is telling me he was responsible for the end of Apartheid (?!!), was the "greatest civil rights campaigner since Martin Luther King" (!!!) and was "the artist of the millennium (move over Mozart, Beethoven and Bach). What changed? He died.

It's absurd. But the Chaser put it better than I can:



(Some translation for non-Australians: "Brockie" = Australian race car driver Peter Brock who died when he crashed into a tree, "Stan Zemanek" = a xenophobic, ranting, vile talk radio shock jock who died of a brain tumor, "Martin Bryant" = the Port Arthur massacre gunman who murdered 35 people in a killing spree in 1996, "Don Bradman" = the greatest cricket batsman who ever lived, but who was apparently an unpleasant character off the field, "Kerry Packer" = media mogul and formerly Australia's richest man, also an unpleasant person and tax fraud, "Belinda Emmet" - a much loved Australian actress and singer who died of breast cancer in 2006. She was universally regarded as one of the nicest people on the planet, so her inclusion in the song is a joke.)

The point of the song is clear: "Even :wub:s turn into top blokes when they're dead." Which is ridiculous.

[Dr. Croccer]

One week Michael Jackson was the bizarre, twisted freakshow he's been for decades now (leaving aside the strong likelihood he was also a child-raping pervert). The next my TV is telling me he was responsible for the end of Apartheid (?!!), was the "greatest civil rights campaigner since Martin Luther King" (!!!) and was "the artist of the millennium (move over Mozart, Beethoven and Bach). What changed? He died

Heh true. But then again Michael Jackson is worth respecting, it's sorta a legacy that eccentric people have. Nobody really cares that Beethoven was mad, but that his music was a massive contribution. Nobody remembers Van Gogh as a nutter, but as a great artist. And that's gonna be the same with Jackson too. Nobody will give a about his alleged pedocurious behavior, but his musical legacy. And that's a good thing really. Because they deserve to be respected, even if they were bat insane.