I have made arrangements when I die to be delivered to a taxidermist. After he is done I will be placed in my next of kins home "in the way" of normal foot traffic.
But he didn't say that. He saidWhich implies the surviving family members get no benefit from it. His comment wasn't even about 7 foot tombstones, it was about the existence of burial sites and cemeteries to begin with. That is the part that makes him an idiot.the benefit of burial sites and graves is business, not helping people move on.
people are just eager to jump on it because it's roranora, whereas his core point is absolutely correct
funeral homes exist to make money
I don't even know what this means. Is he a dick somewhere on the forums or something? I can honestly say I don't have him associated with anything, but this could be from lack of an avatar.
And we're saying we don't think that's his core point at all. Or at least, if ALL he wanted to point out was funeral homes were a business (no shit sherlock) he did a terrible job of explaining that.
ITT: Capitalism and job-creators.
The words he used to convey his point literally mean funeral homes offer no benefit to society and function solely as a cash grab. That's rubbish and we all know that.
He wasn't even using ratatpa talk, we understood him perfectly and he is an idiot for saying (and thinking) that cemeteries function only as a cash grab.
Are they a cash grab? Yes. But do they offer some people closure, peace of mind, and the ability to better cope with their loss? Absofuckinglutely.
I think the important question is whether or not funeral homes, and the act of putting corpses in coffins and burying them, provides comfort without prior knowledge that this is what's generally done with corpses. In other words, is the receipt of comfort from burying your dead relatives a learned behavior? If it is, then he's 100% correct - the original funeral home (the concept of funeral homes) was invented to "sell" people on the notion that they'll feel better if they do this. I think it is a learned behavior, personally. More generally, the way most people react to most situations is learned behavior.
The fact of the matter is these places provide a way for people to cope with their emotional distress, whether you believe this is a learned behavior or not is irrelevant.
There are people who want to bury their dead as a means of closure, and there are people willing to sell their land to do so. That is all a cemetery is, nothing more nothing less.
The point is that if society has learned this behavior, there's no reason they can't learn a different behavior that is more sustainable. This hearkens back to Roranora's original point, "if suddenly there were no more graveyards, people wouldn't be losing it left and right" (paraphrased). People can adapt and use cremation as a new coping mechanism, or adapt to using wooden coffins and allowing the body to decompose naturally in the earth, instead of trapping it in something that will take centuries or more to degrade.
In other words, when dealing with learned behavior, the fact that it's learned means the behavior itself is fucking arbitrary. If the behavior isn't in our best interests, and we know of better options, then we should switch to another option. People will adapt.
funeral homes exist to fill a demand.
Cannot figure out what blubber's post has to do with this:
the benefit of burial sites and graves is business, not helping people move on.
So do casinos, crack houses, and homeopathic pharmacies.
If you've got money to blow, sure, build a monument. Whatever floats your boat. It's really depressing when families who are barely getting by decide to spend $10k on a funeral instead of paying mortgages or college funds, though. Worse yet, they do it out of a sense of obligation, without even thinking twice, just because that's how it's "supposed" to be.