The term “revel” doesn’t necessarily mean “dancing in the streets.” It means “celebrating with feeling” or “basking in the joy of one’s victory” such as “reveling in one’s placing first in the marathon.”
Natural Law; you need to hardwire respect of human dignity for it to work. That has to extend to someone’s corpse.
If you mistreat human bodies, you’re dehumanizing the human form. You’re cheapening death itself.
You’re saying that you get to punish their bodies after they’ve died for what they did in life. But that’s simply vengeance; a body cannot defend itself, nor can it harm you directly.
It means there’s no justification to give into the impulse to mistreat it.
It IS “justified” if the enemy BELIEVES that mistreatment of the corpse condemns the former occupier to damnation and hellfire instead of “72 virgins in paradise,” which followers of the Quran do. It’s not about what WE believe. It’s about what THEY believe.
Indeed. Well mostly. You might say that it’s just as pointless to disrespect the corpse as it is to respect the corpse, but insulting the corpse isn’t really about insulting the dead. It disrespects the living who still intend to do harm, which is probably a point in support of your other argument.
Why? How? How does that follow natural law?
What does that even mean?
It disrespects all humans, including the living. It trivializes death, moving it from something to mourn to a game of one-upmanship.
Natural law does not work without hard wiring respect of human dignity. That’s fundamental.
That’s why even a stone cold killer isn’t treated like an animal in the court room.
You’ve objectified it. Treated it as something other than human.
And like giving a dog an old sock to play with, only for them to go after your other socks, you’re conditioning everyone to think that’s fine. If you hate the person hard enough it’s alright to dehumanize them.
No, it doesn’t.
No, it doesn’t. Death sucks. It isn’t trivial. Disrespecting a corpse doesn’t make death trivial.
I don’t know what this means, hard wiring respect of human dignity.
In any case, I can respect you, but your corpse on a slab is not something I respect or disrespect. I mourn those I’ve lost, and their corpses briefly mean something but only in context of the respect I had for them in life. When I spread ashes, it’s not the ashes themselves that mean anything. When I carry a casket, it’s not for the corpse’s sake but the sake of those around me and the person I loved in life. The corpse is still just a corpse. It will rot in the ground or be scattered on the wind or sit on the mantle as a reminder of what I did love. It’s a symbol at most. Worthy symbols are worthy of respect. Unworthy symbols are not.
I thought it was to ensure we don’t convict the wrong man. When the time comes, throughout history under common law, we’ve whacked those we believe are guilty just like we whack a dangerous animal.
i haven’t objectified it. A corpse is not human. I doubt any corpses are going to get angry at me for objectifying them. Why? Because they’re just objects with no life in them. No, I’m never going to treat a corpse as a human. I’ll reserve that for the living.
Nothing about my argument here suggests it’s OK to dehumanize anyone. I am not in any way suggesting that it’s OK to dehumanize someone just because I hate them. Your conclusion here is incorrect.
You do that by turning it into a game of one-upmanship. Which is all that defacing a corpse amounts to.
It’s not moral, it’s not motivated by anything decent. It’s simply enacting vengeance.
You’ve denied the possibility of mourning to play a tribalistic game with the body.
That is very much trivializing death. No regard to the loss of life is paid.
At every level, you demand respect of human life be sacrosanct. Universally. No exceptions.
You make actions affirming this even when they’re uncomfortable, even when you don’t want to.
Because it’s not about any person you point to, it’s about the principle of what a life is worth.
The body is a temple, and the only one who is allowed to destroy that Temple is the Lord. If there is any vengeance to be he had, it is his alone.
Even when convicted, you don’t turn the guilty over to a mob. Nor do you do anything cruel or unusual.
They are human. Human DNA, human organs, human blood. They are simply not alive.
And I’m not saying the latter. The only reason that we need to respectfully bury the dead ourselves in this case, is because we’re not turning the body over to anyone who would care for it.
And again, I concede the practical reason for why we’re not doing that.
BS, AS. You don’t “respect” someone who’s disrespected human life their entire adult existence. It’s NOT about how WE feel about someone’s death. It’s about how THEY (or their sycophants) feel about that death. It’s why muslims literally RAPED the dead body of Mohammar Qadaffi after Hillary and Company gave them the go-ahead and reportedly did the same thing to our Ambassador in Benghazi. They didn’t do that because they “respected” the dead. If THEY consider disrespect for the dead to be an abomination, it doesn’t matter whether or not WE do. You do unto them what they would undoubtedly do to you if the roles were reversed.
So to beat them we become them? How then do we deserve to win?
We win by destroying them, Qix. And then we treat their dead as they would treat ours, given the opportunity. We don’t “become them.” We emulate them to show them that we have no respect FOR them.
That seems to have more to do with your other argument, the one I can get behind, ya know, pissing people off and making more terrorists. Not sure if that’s true, but it’s a reasonable argument I think may be true.
The other tribe wants to murder you. They make life trivial. As far as I’m concerned, by their own actions, they make their own lives trivial. Their deaths? That’s self-defense. And their corpses are not entitled to any particular respect. Those criminals with whom they are surrounded jettisoned their chance to mourn when they decided they want to murder everyone else.
And yet, our discussion is about a corpse and necessary and deliberate death.
The corpse is a temple? Or the living body of a human being? Seems to me that corpse, that temple, is going to be ignobly eaten by worms, bugs and microscopic organisms or it will be incinerated.
Even when convicted, criminals still live.
It’s hard to cruelly and unusually punish a corpse.
This is priceless. Hershel may have agreed with you. He had a barn full of the dead that he was keeping “alive” in “The Walking Dead.” In that case, they were walking around. In the real world, the dead are dead and don’t move. Simply not alive, as you say. Dead and decaying human DNA, organs and blood do not entitle anyone to the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Ironically, one of our three core rights (I would say the other two proceed from it as well) is life.
That’s what humans are entitled to. Not the dead. The dead can’t have life. They are not human. They’re sacks of decaying meat. And if they got up and walked around as in “The Walking Dead,” I very likely would “dehumanize” and “hate” them, justifying violence against them.
This is just a weird conversation – where generally I think I hold a minority view on this here too if this were another thread.
Not become them, employ a tactic that will discourage their followers from continuing by playing to their own twisted ideas.
When we honor them we encourage them, they view that as a sign that we are weak and they are righteous; they think Allah is making us honor them when in reality it is just our own ignorance of their ideology.
If they know that sacrificing themselves to kill us will result in their own condemnation from the god that they aspire to serve, they will likewise interpret that as a sign that Allah does not endorse their murderous course.
We cannot defeat an enemy by assuming that he thinks like us, we know a corpse is meaningless but our enemy thinks that how corpses are treated can insure or condemn their fate; that is a powerful weapon for our side that shouldn’t be ignored.
Except that they are not doing what they do because we “piss them off”, their actions are based on their twisted religious faith that makes us worthy of slaughter because we refuse to submit to their “god”.
They see the United States and Israel as entities that serve as a stumbling block to the conversion that they desire of the whole world; they think our prosperity (greed they would call it) is an addictive poison that motivates other nations to want to emulate us.
They believe that eradicating us will topple the structure that provides the means to success in the material sense; leaving their faith an opportunity to win whoever is left and usher in their 12th Iman and paradise.
They associate Christianity and Judaism as the same (people of the “book”) and they think that the “satan” we serve is the provider of our prosperity; that is why they view murdering us as an act of righteousness and why they see no sin in lying to us or in any measure of brutality that they administer to our men, women or children.
They are not “pissed”, they are on a crusade to eradicate an inhuman entity that deserves only destruction according to their “god”.
It does not matter who they are, or what they did.
Human is human, a loss of life is a loss of life. A body is a body. You treat them the same. here, we are only required to dispose the remains respectfully ourselves, because we’re not turning the body over to those who care about them.
To the best of my knowledge, that doesnt actually work. I am perfectly willing to see violence used against the violent, and even take part in it if necessary or just useful. I agree with RWNJ that terrorists have willingly placed themselves in a category undeserving of human respect or dignity, but I am of the belief that deliberately visiting ignominities on their corpses cheapens us and, in fact, attaches too much importance to them. They should be treated as the refuse they are, to be disposed of efficiently with complete indifference; bulldozed into mass graves or landfills, dumped into the ocean, incinerated, whatever is fastest and cheapest. They simply aren’t important enough to merit anything more.
I’ll disagree. I believe that dipping bullets in pig’s blood and burying them in pig skins is indeed a deterrent to fundamentalist Muslims. It just hasn’t been done in far too many years.
Just wandering around some thoughts here based on these posts.
I know AS’s answer.So to the others, I’m curious, if the terrorists disrespected the corpses of American victims, specifically, are they demeaning and cheapening death or life? Are the American corpses worthy of respect? Is the desecration of corpses, something that does indeed happen, by Muslim terrorists an issue? Remember, as RET explained, they view us as Satan’s followers. They view us the way we view them (thanks to their actions), as pure evil. Should we, do we collectively, take some special offense to the disrespect they show the corpses of their victims? Or is our offense centered on the taking of the life itself?
Pershing didn’t do this btw. And the British caused a revolt forcing Muslim soldiers to use cartridges made from pig fat.
Of course it is. Doing the same to them however just makes us act out on their level, one of playing a game with bodies instead of giving the loss of life its due.
You don’t gain a victory; you only make them angry. There’s no point to it, and no moral motive to justify it.