3 ms·

I fear we've elevated 'consent' to absurd proportions. Every country in the world was built by those who didn't consent to build it (by serfdom, slavery, ..).

I fear we've elevated 'consent' to absurd proportions. Every country in the world was built by those who didn't consent to build it (by serfdom, slavery, ..). I hope this is preserved; what a pointless waste otherwise. How are we to imagine the deceased here? A person outraged at the insult, or one now doubly outraged at the waste?

ethbr1 3y ago
I don't consider myself much concerned with my body after death. But I'd feel some kind of way if someone flayed my skin off my cadaver to make a book cover. Even being a skeleton in an anatomy class seems more purposeful.
- plugin-baby 3y ago
  You could do both!
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    This made me laugh. Kudos on the quip.
- bxksnche 3y ago
  But what about your family? How would they feel about your skin being used as a hazing ritual? If it hasn’t been donated by the family, what right does the university have over it?
- mjburgess 3y ago
  How would you feel if after a century of your skin being on a book, that was then 'disposed of'? This 'disposing' isnt being consented to either. Why should it be that non-consentual creation is a sin, but not non-consentual destruction?
  - chabes 3y ago
    But that’s not what happened or is happening with the skin.
  - notnaut 3y ago
    “Disposed of” is what we do with corpses usually. Society tends to put quite a lot of weight on doing it the right way. If your home town was invaded tonight, everyone you know and love there killed, and their skin used to upholster the president’s favorite recliner, would that make their remains an artifact now? What more is there to learn in keeping a corpse unburied in this case?
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Exactly. I don't bill myself as an expert on early 20th-century burial practices in America, but I'm willing the hazard the default expectation was "ground" rather than "use to make a book cover." Ergo, it seems in keeping with the deceased's likely wishes to properly bury their remains.
    - uaserussia 3y ago
      [dead]

ethbr1 3y ago

I don't consider myself much concerned with my body after death. But I'd feel some kind of way if someone flayed my skin off my cadaver to make a book cover. Even being a skeleton in an anatomy class seems more purposeful.

plugin-baby 3y ago
You could do both!
- ethbr1 3y ago
  This made me laugh. Kudos on the quip.
bxksnche 3y ago
But what about your family? How would they feel about your skin being used as a hazing ritual? If it hasn’t been donated by the family, what right does the university have over it?
mjburgess 3y ago
How would you feel if after a century of your skin being on a book, that was then 'disposed of'? This 'disposing' isnt being consented to either. Why should it be that non-consentual creation is a sin, but not non-consentual destruction?
- chabes 3y ago
  But that’s not what happened or is happening with the skin.
- notnaut 3y ago
  “Disposed of” is what we do with corpses usually. Society tends to put quite a lot of weight on doing it the right way. If your home town was invaded tonight, everyone you know and love there killed, and their skin used to upholster the president’s favorite recliner, would that make their remains an artifact now? What more is there to learn in keeping a corpse unburied in this case?
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    Exactly. I don't bill myself as an expert on early 20th-century burial practices in America, but I'm willing the hazard the default expectation was "ground" rather than "use to make a book cover." Ergo, it seems in keeping with the deceased's likely wishes to properly bury their remains.
  - uaserussia 3y ago
    [dead]