Humanities desk
< July 18	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 19

Why are bad things considered "good" by those that oppose them?

Aye, wir aw Jock Tamson's bairns

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can someone tell me why things that are traditionally considered bad (racism, fascism, rape, supplanting native populations, mass murder, etc) are considered good when flipped/reversed (affirmative action, Islam, male prison rape, multiculturalism, feminist advocated male genocide)? It seems that those on the "hard left" of the political spectrum take all the things they claim to hate and then advocate those things to be applied against their ideological enemies. Have I misunderstood something? Schlicks2animegrills (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Schlicks2animegrills (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Missing from your question are specific examples. Can you flesh out even one case in which one extreme corresponds to another extreme? I think these would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. You might as well start with one case. In my opinion any generalized response to your inquiry would be almost nonproductive. Bus stop (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one case that rings true is racism versus Affirmative Action. That's just counter-discrimination. One advocate claimed it's OK because it discriminates "for" someone, as opposed to "against" them. However, when you discriminate for anyone, you automatically discriminate against everyone else. Better to just enforce anti-discrimination laws, IMHO. StuRat (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. The theory behind affirmative action is that there are more candidates than there are positions. Without affirmative action, an organization would be free to select by race, thus leaving out equally qualified candidates of another race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be racial discrimination, which is illegal. Selecting candidates based on stats alone, with no pictures, names (like Lakeshia Jackson), or interviews, would be one way to eliminate racial bias in hiring. I also reject the idea that there are equally qualified candidates. Whatever you are ranking people on, you can always add more precision, to enable you to distinguish between candidates. For example, SAT scores range from 600 to 2400, so you aren't likely to get many candidates with exactly the same score. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it now usual to conflate "affirmative action" with non-discrimination? As I understand the term, AA means going beyond passive non-discrimination to, for example, advertising aimed at the disadvantaged. —Tamfang (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The old way was "take care of the white guys first and see if anything's left over." Under affirmative action, it's fairer overall. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's core premise is highly flawed. Every one of the so-called "opposites" are not opposites, and the notion that left embraces the second list is baloney. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At least for the case of "affirmative action" (or "positive discrimination" outside the US), the article privilege (social inequality), and other articles linked from there, should give some of the answers. For advocates of the approach, its undesirable attributes are outweighed by larger considerations. The OP's dichotomy of "good"and "bad" is too simple to be of any value in the discussion. --ColinFine (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a look at the "War of Words" (I prefer "Dictionary Dance-off") between Republicans and Democrats. Did you know the opposite of life is choice? Me neither.

Even generally, you never want your opponent to sound good, when you and your opponent's power depends on who likes who. If it's one-on-one, best to go with accentuating his/her positives. That way, if you win, you beat someone formidable, and if you lose, you didn't get beat by a schmuck. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the username and that this is their first edit, congrats folks, you got trolled. --Golbez (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is implied by the username? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"schlick" is the female equivalent to the male "fap". --Golbez (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or the opposite. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "fap" means either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? (Is it younger generations slang?) It means to wank. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in wanker, the British insult. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The old five knuckle shuffle. Badgering the witness. Playing the mutton trombone, and so forth. Like checking for squirrels or kneading the whisker biscuit, but the other way around. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the user's name makes total sense now. So, should this entire section be zapped? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do American atheists hold funerals?

I am just wondering, because I've read obituaries and watched movies and noticed that dead people have a funeral service in a church. It makes me wonder whether American atheists have a funeral at all. Although Christian-raised atheists may have Christian families who may bury them or cremate them, what about people whose families have never been Christian? I have heard that most cemeteries are owned by churches, so does that mean non-Christians have to be buried in their own backyard or cremated? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of cemeteries have "non-denominational" areas, for those who choose burial. Many cemeteries are owned by trusts, and divvied up into sections for each denomination. But as to the general question, I suspect most atheists would choose to donate their body to science (i.e. to be used for research). Do we have an article on this phenomenon? It still leaves the question of what to do with the person's remains after the researchers are finished with them, though. You've still got the same options as everyone else: burial, or cremation. If I was an atheist (which I am NOT), I would want to donate my organs and tissues to living recipients if possible, the rest of my body to science, and after the scientists were done, Natural burial. 110.149.165.69 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article on the "phenomenon" as you call it is body donation. Dismas|^(talk) 15:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth adding perhaps, as far as what is done with the body afterwards, where I live they will cremate it for free and send the ashes back to the family. Zell Faze (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tons of US communities have public cemeteries; anyone may buy any lot that's not already purchased by someone else. But what about the funeral itself? I don't know; hopefully someone else will know better than I do. Nyttend (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are likely as many answers to what atheists do as to what theists do. While not a religious occasion, the life is often still celebrated with friends and family. There may be a viewing of the body at a funeral home and then off to the cemetery like many theists. There may be no body (possibly due to donation to science, cremation, etc) and just photos of the deceased while people sit around a pub or a family member's home and again, celebrate the life. Dismas|^(talk) 15:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of links to secular ceremony officiants, in the US and elsewhere, here. In the UK, where most people are cremated, secular and humanist funerals like these are widely practiced. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "atheist", I did not really mean secular. Sometimes, atheists will follow traditional cultural practices, but I don't think that idea is feasible if the atheist is removed geographically from the rest of the family. It may be very difficult to keep traditions in the family that way. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty much all non-believers in my family, but the ceremonies are still followed. Most Catholic priests won't ask too many questions about a funeral as long as you make a donation (about $1,000 for my sister's funeral). I did the readings in the funeral mass, although everyone knows I am an atheist. I just don't go to communion. You might also want to watch Six Feet Under to see various options for funerals. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral homes often offer free coffee (or even little sandwiches). That's not the main reason people show up, but it's better than paying for it. Some places let you pay for it. Something for everyone, no need for faith. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized you asked "how" and not "why". My bad. For one less-than-sacred farewell to an ungodly mess, see G.G. Allin's funeral. Or don't. Viewer discretion is advised and, of course, that's not typical for or indicative of atheists. Just an (allegedly bad) example. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 71.79.234.132—you say "I have heard that most cemeteries are owned by churches". Where have you heard that? Do you have a source for that? Bus stop (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended two funerals for friends who were Atheists... for the first one, I did not attend the burial, but did attend a "Memorial" at his home - the "service" had no prayers or hymns... a few friends read poems that he liked, others gave "remembrances" (sharing stories of his life), and his sister played a song he loved on the piano.

For the other, there was a full religious funeral service (in an Episcopal church) and burial (in the churchyard cemetery - where about five generations of her ancestors were buried). My friend actually left her family instructions to do this... because while she was an Atheist, she knew the rest of her family were not... and that it would mean something to them to have a religious service. She felt that funerals were for the living, not for the dead (As she lay dieing, she said: "I won't be there... so do whatever makes you happiest"). Blueboar (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the funerals I've gone to for religious persons had a limited enough religious presence that one could easily repackage it for atheists -- probably a deliberate choice on the part of the funeral homes. I'm saying this from the Bible Belt, too. Have the visitation, eulogy, etc in the funeral home instead of the church (because for some of them there was no attempt at even lip-service), have a close friend speak at the burial instead of a minister giving a sermon, and tada, completely secular funeral. Or read some quotes by biologists or economists (whether their preferred expressions of atheism leaned more towards science or politics) suggesting how the person's death is freeing up resources for others, and portray it as something noble. Or read from their favorite philosophers.

I'm pretty sure that my mom's cousin ("the" atheist in a family of Baptists and Methodists) is going to have a Unitarian Universalist service to accommodate (or rather, mutually annoy) both his religious family-by-birth and irreligious family-by-association. Ironically, my immediate family (liberal Baptists and Methodists) are quickly shifting toward "no funerals for any of us, dispose of the body in the cheapest way possible and grieve however you damn well please on your own time" or "just give me a stick." We're usually told that that's selfish or mean to everyone else who knew us, that they deserve their chance to grieve (in front of us), that the surviving family is going to regret not hearing other people saying "I'm going through the same thing," etc. However, a lot of people aren't as misanthropic as us and do want their love ones to have a chance to say goodbye one last time. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many atheists who pass away are getting a humanist ceremony. They are similar to a religious funeral, but they differ in some ways. For one, there is no mention of the afterlife or God. The humanist ceremony is more of a celebration of life for the person who has passed away. Different examples of celebration of life include meeting friends and family of the deceased to talk about past memories of the person, singing poems or songs devoted to the deceased, and creating art such as paintings for the deceased person. ^[1] Atheist services are held to bring a sense of closure and peace to those affected by the passing of their loved one. It gives loved ones a time and place to express their sorrow and grief in a time of sadness and despair. ^[2] Many atheists choose to be cremated when they die, however some still opt to be buried in cemeteries with family members and other loved ones ^[3]

RohlingRock (talk) 22:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

[1] ttps://humanism.org.uk/ceremonies/non-religious-funerals/

[2] ttps://www.funeralwise.com/customs/atheist/

[3] ttp://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showthread.php?t=15924

[1]

[2]

[3]